Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday next.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

CROMARTY PETRôLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Monday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Lorries (Loading Regulations)

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied that the regulations designed to prevent the overloading of heavy goods vehicles are being observed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that roadside spot checks of heavy goods vehicles by the RUC and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment indicate that a substantial majority of vehicles comply with the loading limits. However, in the 12 months ending April 1976, 343 overloadings were detected and 59 prosecutions initiated.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that that is a substantial number? The

majority of law-abiding companies that originally set out loyally to obey and comply with the regulations are now meeting with unfair competition from a tiny minority of unscrupulous companies that in some cases are using lorries designed to carry loads of 13½ tons to carry loads of 22 tons. Will the Minister ensure that there is overall and even enforcement of the regulations?

Mr. Dunn: I appreciate the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. If he gives the Department the names and addresses of those concerned, we shall make further inquiries.

Mr. Cohen: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to issue the consultative document on the reorganisation of secondary schools in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): The consultative document was published on Tuesday 27th July and copies have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend indicate the measure of agreement that exists on comprehensive education in Northern Ireland among the bodies associated with the provision of education? Will he indicate what the timetable for implementation may be, arising from this document?

Mr. Moyle: The object of the consultative document is to promote a discussion in the Province, and the measure of agreement will emerge from that. I am allowing approximately six months for a public debate, but it will not be cut firmly at that time if the debate is still continuing. If there is to be a White Paper, it will be in the spring of 1977. Legislation, if required, will not be until the 1977–78 Session.

Mr. McCusker: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to give a costing to the scheme as envisaged in his consultative document, or a scheme based on it? Will he assure the House that he will not replace the already adequate education system with an untried and costly system that will bear heavily on a Province that will be seriously affected by financial restriction?

Mr. Moyle: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I gave him that assurance


on the last occasion we had Northern Ireland parliamentary Questions. An outline costing for the scheme is contained in the consultative document, and a copy is being sent to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most agreeable and constant features of educational life in Northern Ireland is the equitable way in which the schools have been treated? Schools of all denominations have been treated with generosity and on an equitable basis. This has hapened under all Governments in Northern Ireland and here. Will the Minister give an assurance that this state of affairs will be fostered and permeated?

Mr. Moyle: I am pleased to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the consultative document uses the expressions "Roman Catholic sector" and "non-Roman Catholic sector"? Does he realise that "non-Roman Catholic sector" is an offensive way in which to describe the schools provided for the majority of Ulster people, when it is just as easy to refer to the controlled schools and the Protestant voluntary schools? Will he issue a correction to remove this offending description?

Mr. Moyle: It was not intended to be offensive, and I do not regard it as offensive. I shall not alter the document as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public debate to which he has referred has already begun? On the one hand, many teachers have been expressing their dislike of the 11-plus examination, but, on the other, the Association of Governing Bodies of Voluntary Schools has expressed the opinion that the abolition of the 11-plus, which so many teachers and others want, need not lead to the abolition of the 58 voluntary grammar schools, Catholic, Protestant and non-denominational, that have served Ulster so well?

Mr. Moyle: As is stated in the consultative document, it is my desire to bring the voluntary schools into the reorganised system of secondary educa-

tion by consent. I shall do my best to achieve that.

Rent Arrears

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrears of rent are outstanding for publicly owned housing; and what steps are being taken to recover the arrears.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): It is estimated that Housing Executive tenants owe £3·4 million for rent, £1·7 million for rates and £0·1 million for heating charges. Arrears are being recovered by allocations of social security benefits, under which some 2,170 tenants are having deductions made, and a further 500 cases per week are now being referred to the Housing Executive for possible allocation of benefits.

Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend inform the House whether any of these arrears are due to the rent strikes, for instance, by the minority community, or do the arrears stretch across both communities?

Mr. Concannon: The Department does not now divide the rent arrears between those who were involved in the rent strike and other defaulters. The former's arrears have been reduced to such an amount that it is hardly worth trying to divide them up. On the other hand, a new feature in Northern Ireland is that rent arrears are divided between the two communities.

Mr. Carson: Will the Minister inform us how many deductions are being made from wages? Will he also inform us how many people owing between £400 and £500 in arrears have now left the area, and what steps are being taken to recover these outstanding debts?

Mr. Concannon: We are going to recover the outstanding amounts. There will be no amnesty. There are 120 public employees having deductions made from their salaries and 1,350 tenants have been taken before the enforcement of judgments office. We intend collecting these arrears.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Is the Minister aware of the problems being encountered by private landlords in areas where normal policing cannot be carried out? What


advice has been given to private landlords who are suffering as much as people in the public sector?

Mr. Concannon: This matter is dealt with in the Porter Report, on which I have made a statement. I hope that legislation will be brought before the House in due course. This is not a new point. Policing in certain areas is not yet in full force. This situation has been going on for some time. Private landlords can take these individuals to court.

Non-Denominational Education

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from and what meeting he has arranged with educational organisations about the ending of sectarian segregation in education.

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will hold consultations with a view to extending the provision of education on a non-denominational basis in Northern Ireland.

Sir Nigel Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he proposes to convene a conference of interested parties to identify whether and by what means shared schools could be made available in Northern Ireland to those parents who wish this for their children.

Mr. Moyle: It is not the intention of the Government to deprive parents of the right to have their children educated in accordance with their religious choice. A proposal for shared school governing bodies was made by Mr. Basil McIvor, Minister for Education in the power-sharing Executive, in May 1974. Consultation on this proposal subsequently did not reveal sufficient support to warrant legislation. I have noted a recent renewal of interest in similar proposals to these put forward by Mr. McIvor and I am at present reviewing how these might be further considered.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister stick to the view that he firmly expressed about a year ago, that comprehensive reorganisation should be undertaken in Northern Ireland, and that this upheaval should take place without any move

towards practical desegregation at local level where it is desired and sought by local parents? Is he prepared to take a fairly flexible view, or to contemplate with equanimity a major educational upheaval on the issue of selection but with no change in the direction of desegregation, where it is sought?

Mr. Moyle: The two issues of comprehensive or secondary reorganisation and desegregation are entirely separate. The consultative document was issued on the basis that the majority of Catholic parents will want to send their children to Catholic schools and the majority of non-Catholic parents will want to send their children to non-Catholic schools. I have not sought to depart from the existing arrangement in that respect.

Mr. Rodgers: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while recognising that religious tuition should be freely available in Northern Ireland, many of us believe that educational apartheid can lead to mistrust and even conflict, and that that may be one of the roots of the problem? Will he seriously examine any possibility of improving the situation by bringing children closer together?

Mr. Moyle: Where there is a desire for children of both sects to go to the same school, there is provision in existing arrangements whereby that can be achieved. There would have to be general agreement across the sectarian divide for non-sectarian proposals to make a contribution to the future of Northern Ireland.

Sir N. Fisher: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the idea of experiments, at any rate, in shared schooling was not only accepted by Mr. Faulkner's Executive in 1974 but has since been welcomed by the General Synod of the Church of Ireland, and by many of the Catholic laity. I do not know about the church hierarchy. When does he think that it may be possible to convene the conference that the Secretary of State has undertaken to hold?

Mr. Moyle: I have not yet decided that the conference is the appropriate way to go ahead. That is a suggestion, amongst many others, that I am considering.
I am afraid that my consultations about 18 months ago did not reveal undiluted enthusiasm for shared schooling. However, have noticed renewed interest. I shall see what I can do to assess whether there is a basis for moving forward.

Mr. David James: Will the Minister ensure that he is not deterred in any such negotiations by the hostility of the ever, I have noticed renewed interest. I Roman Catholic hierarchy? I speak as a Roman Catholic.

Mr. Moyle: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I shall consider all contributions and make my judgment on the basis of them as I see them.

Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware that before much progress can be made in this direction a number of entrenched positions will have to be abandoned, not least that of the Roman Catholic Church, which insists that the children of mixed marriages must be brought up as Roman Catholics?

Mr. Moyle: That last point lies outside the scope of the original Question.

Mr. Kilfedder: Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office have been ready to condemn the wide gap between the two communities in Northern Ireland and have repeated that condemnation as often as they can. Surely, by refusing to get rid of segregation in education, they are abdicating their responsibility in this matter.

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. What we are seeking to do in Northern Ireland is no more than appertains in the rest of the United Kingdom. If there is a desire for mixing between people of various religious persuasions, there are a number of school-organised out-of-school activities in which a great deal of mixing takes place.

Assembly

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has made any further progress in reconciling conflicting views amongst political leaders in Northern Ireland regarding progress towards an elected parliament or assembly for the Province.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): As I told the House on 2nd July, I am always ready to entertain constructive and responsible ideas from those in Northern Ireland who are prepared to work together for Northern Ireland. I have played no part in the recent conversations between the SDLP and OUP, which I understand have been adjourned.
I am ready to play a part at an appropriate time.

Mr. Latham: Does the Secretary of State think that he has an energetic rôle to play here, or is he settling down for a long period of direct rule? If the latter, the question of Ulster representation here cannot be shelved indefinitely.

Mr. Rees: It is not a matter of being energetic. A fool can be energetic, and it is easy to be foolish in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman would find if he went there. Therefore, it is a matter not of being energetic but of judging the situation.
On the question of seats, I received a news release from the United Ulster Unionist Party on the talks. I read in it that I am to get a report. I do not think that I have yet received the report. The news release referred to being fully represented in all the democratic fora, and said that agreement had been reached. Immediately that news release was issued, the spokesman for the SDLP, Mr. John Hume, made it clear that the SDLP was not in favour of any extra representation in this House. So runs the problem that we have to face.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are gratified by the interest, as shown on the Order Paper, taken by hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain in the affairs of Northern Ireland and that we regard that as a welcome sign of the acceptance of the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which there are conflicting views on the form and desirability of devolution?

Mr. Rees: I am glad that other right hon. and hon. Members are showing a


great interests in the wider issues in Northern Ireland. I think that is right.
When in Northern Ireland I read that there are other problems of devolution in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cryer: I wonder whether, in the absence of any immediate facilities for a Northern Ireland Assembly, my right lion Friend has any comment to make on the scrutiny by this Parliament of subordinate legislation applying to Northern Ireland? Does he not feel that with the likelihood of direct rule continuing, there ought to be a greater opportunity for elected representatives here to have that necessary degree of scrutiny?

Mr. Rees: There is a problem here. I do not propose to go into the question of the technical nature of the orders. We have announced that we are prepared to make some changes, arising from our debates on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Neave: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of our agreement that there is little point in trying to hustle political progress towards another form of devolved government in Northern Ireland? In the meantime what steps is he taking to make direct rule less bureaucratic and more accessible to local opinion?

Mr. Rees: I understand the problem about direct rule, but, as was the case with the previous Administration, Ministers who work with me in the Northern Ireland Office spend a great deal of time in all parts of Northern Ireland. I do not think there are any Ministers in any other Department who are as accessible to the people of an area as Northern Ireland Ministers are.

Life Imprisonment

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what point in their sentences prisoners serving life imprisonment are deemed to have served half their term of imprisonment.

Mr. Concannon: A sentence of life imprisonment is an indeterminate sentence; one half of the term of imprisonment is therefore also indeterminate.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Absolutely impeccable logic.

Mr. Litterick: I am most grateful to the Minister for setting me that insoluble

conundrum. Does he agree that the indeterminacy of the sentence and, therefore, by definition, of the half sentence, leaves open the question when a prisoner serving a life sentence would, or should, or can, be released? Will the Minister deal with this matter at greater length? Can he tell the House whether or not the half-sentence principle is being applied to people convicted in Northern Ireland and subsequently transferred to mainland prisons?

Mr. Concannon: The cases of life-sentenced prisoners are reviewed periodically in consultation with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. Since 1968 five life-sentenced prisoners have been released—two after seven years, two after eight years and one after 16 years. The half sentence, which my right hon. Friend announced on 16th February 1976, applies only to people in gaol in Northern Ireland. If they are transferred to Great Britain I assume that they come under the parôle system of Great Britain.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can the Minister say what the average length of a life sentence in Northern Ireland is?

Mr. Concannon: Obviously I cannot say what the average length of a life sentence is, but what I have just said is that since 1968 only five life sentence prisoners have been released. We now have 132 prisoners serving life sentences and 28 young persons detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure. This is another of those conundrums referred to my my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick).

Homosexuality Law

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for reforming the law concerning homosexuality in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I told the House on 2nd July I have invited views, including those of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, on the question of amending the law relating to homosexuality in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful for that reply, but does the Secretary of State accept that there is a gross disparity between the treatment of homosexuals in Northern Ireland and those in the rest of Great Britain? For the time


being, will he try to make the life of homosexuals in Northern Ireland no more uncomfortable than it is in the rest of the country?

Mr. Rees: I understand the disparity and I think that I ought to listen to the views of the people in Northern Ireland and of the public representatives. I cannot say that this is the most important problem in their minds, but it exists. The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I maintain a distance because I in no sense ought to interfere in those matters.

Mr. Goodhart: What plans does the Secretary of State have to test ordinary public opinion in Northern Ireland on this and other social issues when a change in Northern Ireland legislation is contemplated?

Mr. Rees: I have not decided on any particular method of doing that. I think there are means of finding out, but at the end of the day it will be a matter for this Parliament, as is the case with the situation in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bradford: Is it not possible that in the case of homosexuality Great Britain could take a lead from the legislation that exists in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me, the answer is "No". I think that in this respect we are right and Northern Ireland is wrong.

Belfast Transportation Review

Mr. Fitt: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement with regard to the progress of the Belfast transportation review.

Mr. Concannon: The consultants' study of the Belfast Transportation Review is approaching completion. Six alternative strategies were reviewed in an interim report. The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, in consultation with the Belfast City Council, chose three for further study. The consultants' draft final report has been received by the Department and preparations are at present being made for publication of the final report in the near future.

Mr. Fitt: Is the Minister aware that in the absence of specific proposals emerging from this review on transportation there are many areas, lying vacant and neglected, particularly in the city of Belfast, which could be used for the provision of either homes or small and light industry? Is he also aware of a recent Press report to the effect that the transportation studies have cost the Government thousands and thousands of pounds and can he confirm or deny that the figures which have been quoted are correct?

Mr. Concannon: I think the newspaper that my hon. Friend has referred to is the Andersonstown News. The report did not say "thousands" of pounds; it said "millions". In fact, £280,000 has been spent so far. It is another of those journals which tend slightly to exaggerate. None of the three strategies provides for an elevated urban motorway of the same standard as that contained in the original design. Two of the three strategies do include a proposed dual carriageway along the line of phase 1, linking the M1 and M2 to channel heavy traffic from the docks away from residential areas and the city centre.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister reconsider the advisability of proceeding with the motor road link at Whitehouse, to which I have already referred in a previous debate. Will he bear in mind that this is likely to cost over £3 million? Would that money not be better spent in other directions? For example, it could be used to avoid doing real damage to the economy of Northern Ireland if it were available for that purpose?

Mr. Concannon: I wish somebody had taken note of the hon. Gentleman's views some time ago, because I think that money spent on roads in Northern Ireland would have been much better spent elsewhere, anyway. I shall certainly take note of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Traffic Signs (Defacement)

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to prevent the display of posters and advertising material where they deface traffic and safety signs.

Mr. Dunn: Posters fixed to traffic signs are taken down by staff of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment as soon as they can. The penalty for displaying an advertisement in contravention of current Northern Ireland regulations is a fine up to £100. Anyone who wilfully interferes with or damages a traffic sign is liable to a fine of £50 or imprisonment for three months, or both.

Mr. Cartwright: In view of the obvious inconvenience to the public and, more important, the implications of road safety, can my hon. Friend explain why those responsible for this fly-posting have not already been prosecuted?

Mr. Dunn: In the first instance it is a matter for the police, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to make an appeal to the people concerned to end this irresponsible practice, which is very dangerous. If this appeal fails I shall consult my right hon. Friend and the police to see that a more effective enforcement of the law is brought about.

Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the worst offenders in this respect is something called "Action Group"? It is an extraordinary thing that those who profess to be interested in the life and well-being of their fellow-citizens should deliberately endanger it by defacing necessary signs.

Mr. Dunn: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Security

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the state of law and order.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the security situation.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in the Province.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Violence has continued throughout July and there have been a number of recent terrorist incidents, some of them particularly brutal, in

which innocent civilians from all parts of the community have been killed or seriously injured. Fewer civilians have been killed than in previous months, but bombing attacks have continued at a higher level and substantial damage has been caused to property in Londonderry, Belfast and rural areas, notably in Castledawson and Kilrea.
There has been an increase in shooting and bombing attacks against the security forces. Only last night three policemen were injured in a booby trap explosion in Lurgan; one of them is very seriously injured. I regret also that a member of the RUC Reserve was shot at an Army checkpoint near Bessbrook. The RUC is investigating both these incidents. Two members of the security forces have been killed by terrorists so far this month, and 33 injured.
There have in the past fortnight been various disturbances among special category and remand prisoners, obviously designed to put pressure on the prison authorities. The Government's announced decisions on the future treatment of newly-convicted prisoners will not be changed.
As I have told the House on many previous occasions, the way to fight terrorism and to maintain the rule of law is through the processes of the law. The security forces continue to meet the challenge of terrorism from whatever quarter it comes and wherever it occurs. So far this year 659 have been charged with terrorist crime, including 55 with murder, and 57 with attempted murder.
I have signed an order excluding Mr. Rory O'Brady from the United Kingdom under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976. He is the President of the Provisional Sinn Fein, but the exclusion is concerned with the individual and not with the organisation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome what he said about the arrest of Mr. O'Brady, and that some of us think that perhaps it is a little belated? May I ask him something about the prisons where the disturbances took place, though it is not necessarily directly connected with the disturbances? Is he aware that he will have our full support in seeing through the decision to end special category status?

Mr. Rees: I must make it clear that the decision whether Mr. O'Brady should be arrested was a matter not for me but for the police. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about prisons, because what matters in Northern Ireland is that people should realise that the men in the Maze Prison are there because they have been sentenced, not any act of mine. Those convicted after 1st March will serve their sentences in cells.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is growing anxiety about his plans to accelerate the granting of parôle later this year to some of the hardest men who are now in prison?

Mr. Rees: It is not "later this year"; it has already happened. I announced the plans to the House earlier this year. In this part of the United Kingdom there is a parôle scheme. People have determinate sentences, and they come out of prison. That is a fact of life. I do not deny the problem. What proportion return to violence is another matter.

Mr. Hardy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his comments will be welcomed on the Government side of the House and more widely? Is he not entitled to be rather resentful about the recent remarks by an Opposition Member that there have been tea parties with men of violence? Would it not be better for the moderate profile usually exhibited on the Government side of the House to be maintained outside it?

Mr. Rees: I did not notice the comment about tea parties. I have said before that the exchanges with Sinn Fein have not been anything like as frequent as many people appear to think. I am sure that there was a great advantage in them a year or more ago. I am not prepared to go into details, but I can say that there have been no talks since the early part of this year, and no talks are in prospect. Anyone who talks about talks is not talking about talks in which anyone associated with me is involved. Whether other people outside the Government machine are involved, on their own initiative, in talking to the Provisional Sinn Fein is not a matter for me. Only a few weeks ago I was approached by some-

one who claimed to carry a personal message from David O'Connell, threatening increased violence in Ireland if there were an early political agreement between the parties. I did not seek that meeting; I did not know the man from Adam. I hope that because I received a message in that way no one will say that I am arranging talks.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a large mass of arms held illegally within the Province? What new initiatives does he intend to take to have a more vigorous campaign to discover and recover those arms.

Mr. Rees: This is a matter for the security forces. We talk about it a great deal. There are many illegal weapons in the Province, and finds are made from time to time. These arms are held by people across the divide. In order to do something about them we must have evidence showing where to look and where to dig. The security forces are looking the whole time, and they achieve much success.

Mr. Fitt: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the massive wave of sympathy in Ireland that occurred because of the recent explosions—sympathy that did not come solely from the South or the North. It involved all the people of Ireland, who have shown their absolute repugnance for the men of violence.
On the matter of the exclusion of Mr. O'Brady, it will be for the interest of the House and people in Ireland who are bitterly opposed to violence if my right hon. Friend can tell us definitely and distinctly that the reason for that exclusion order was that there were suspicions or evidence that Mr. O'Brady was directly involved in supporting men engaged in a campaign of violence.

Mr. Rees: I realise that there is the wave of sympathy to which my hon. Friend referred. We are very grateful for the attendance of hon. Members, including an hon. Member from the Opposition Front Bench, at the funeral of a good friend of ours who was killed last week.
With regard to Mr. O'Brady, the situation is quite clear. The Act says that


somebody shall be involved in violence if he
is or has been concerned (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
That is what I have to take into account.

Mr. Powell: In the matter of the prison disturbances and special category, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no less than Her Majesty's Official Opposition, my hon. Friends and myself are in total support of his policy on the ending of the special category; that, if anything, its termination should be accelerated; that there must be no question of his giving way; and that the more this is understood by those concerned the less avoidable damage and destruction there will be?

Mr. Rees: We are extremely grateful for those words, which we strongly support. We shall not give way on the matter of special category, political status, of men being in compounds and doing as they like, as it were, of being in "the best terrorist training school in the world", and all the other words that can be used. These men have been properly sentenced for the most serious crimes and will serve their sentences in the proper fashion.

Mr. Neave: In referring to the counterproductive talks with the Provisional Sinn Fein just now, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was a great advantage in those talks. What was that advantage, and when was it apparent to the people of Northern Ireland, in view of the very heavy casualties of the past few days and months? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not tell the House before that these talks have not occurred since the beginning of this year? He has never said that before.

Mr. Rees: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read what I have been saying. I think that it was apparent to those living in Northern Ireland. I chose my words very carefully. I have said what I had to say on this matter. Eighteen months ago, when an organisation announced a ceasefire—not at our instigation—I should have been wrong if I had not found a means of discovering what it was about and giving in this House my words, as given by officials to that organisation. To

find a means of ending the violence would have been something that everybody should have been pleased about.

Mr. Neave: Will not the right hon. Gentleman admit that he was totally deluded about the ceasefire, that it has been a dreadful mistake, and that he has increased the dangers to the population of Northern Ireland by talking to people to whom he has given political credibility?

Mr. Rees: I think that when the day comes for the facts to be known that will be seen not to be the case. I stand by what I did. I think that I was right to do it.

Playgroup Personnel (Pay)

Mr. Bradford: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the discussion with the Department of Manpower Services regarding the requested increase in wages for statutory and voluntary playgroup personnel in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): Negotiations for the introduction of a common salary structure for pre-school playgroup staff were initiated in 1974 following the rationalisation of former local authority staff in Northern Ireland. Detailed proposals were under consideration in July last year, but agreement on their implementation had not been reached when the present phase of incomes policy was introduced on 11th July 1975. I regret therefore, that there is no scope for pay increases for this group beyond the £6 a week which they received with effect from 1st July 1976.

Mr. Bradford: Whilst the playgroup personnel would want me to thank the Minister and his colleagues for their courtesy in receiving the deputation, that answer will be a great source of disappointment to them. Will he undertake to remunerate this section of personnel, which is making a great contribution to child care in Northern Ireland, as soon as the present phase of the pay policy ceases?

Mr. Carter: My Department is not at all unsympathetic in this matter, but the hon. Member will appreciate that this group is subject to the current economic


policy and therefore I cannot give the undertaking that he seeks.

Housing Executive (Subsidy)

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the purpose and effect of the retrospective subsidy payable under Statutory Rule (N.I.) No. 34, article 11; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Under the provisions of Article 11 of the Housing Subsidy Order (Northern Ireland) 1976 the former Northern Ireland Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning made special additional contributions to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive of £14,742,420 in March 1976. The purpose and effect of these special statutory contributions was to reduce the estimated deficit of the Executive for the financial year 1975–76. The subsidy was not retrospective but paid in respect of the year 1975–76 only, after the passage of the relevant appropriation order.

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the necessity for a parliamentary Question such as this arises from the inadequate explanatory memorandum with which these Statutory Rules are often accompanied. Will he give attention to this, especially in view of the fact that the majority of these rules cannot be called in question in the House?

Mr. Rees: I most certainly shall do that.

Rates (Revaluation)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to alleviate the impact of rates on the economy of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the impact of rates on the economy of Northern Iredand is no greater than that in other parts of the United Kingdom, I have no plans to alleviate it.

Mr. Farr: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that there has not been a general increase in rates in Northern Ireland for 20 years? As a result, there has been a sharp increase, in some cases, from £800 to £10,000 a year, with the consequent effect that

15,000 jobs are likely to be lost? Will he look at this with a view to securing a phased increase?

Mr. Rees: Revaluation merely brings the level up to date, and it should have been done a long time ago. We are only just catching up. A phased increase would mean taking money from other parts of my budget for Northern Ireland, and I cannot do that.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied that the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland has sufficient brown trout and rainbow trout angling waters available in Northern Ireland to meet both local and tourist angling needs.

Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir. The census of angling on the Department's waters shows that there is adequate capacity on its rainbow trout and brown trout waters except in the Belfast area, where the demand exceeds the supply of public angling available.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for his reply, but will he say what plans his Department has for the future stocking of these waters?

Mr. Dunn: The Department keeps under continual review the stocking of these waters and listens to representations made by angling organisations. I am sure that if additional waters are required, that will be considered at the earliest possible opportunity.

Teaching Hospitals (Mid-Ulster)

Mr. Dunlop: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teaching hospitals are located in the Mid-Ulster constituency.

Mr. Concannon: None for undergraduate medical training. Eleven postgraduate training posts are filled in hospitals in the constituency.

Mr. Dunlop: Is the Minister aware of the shortage of medical and para-medical staff in western Northern Ireland? Will he use his good offices and influence in the Government to try to alleviate that position, particularly as it effects consultant staff, although it also applies to ordinary medical staff?

Mr. Concannon: The provision of hospital services is not governed by my Department or the Government. Postgraduate medical training is governed by the medical profession—by the royal colleges in the specialties. The hon. Gentleman's question proves the necessity for the report on the development of hospital services, and that is one thing that we shall have to examine.

Electricity Services (Headquarters)

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of building the proposed new area headquarters for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at Londonderry.

Mr. Moyle: This is, strictly, a matter for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. However, I am prepared to tell the hon. Member that detailed plans for such a new headquarters have not yet been proposed, so it is not possible to give a firm estimate of cost.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that consumers in my constituency are happy with the present arrangement and wish to retain it? Is he aware that they believe that the proposed new headquarters would be a change for the sake of change, and that it would make services remote from the people and the movement of staff economically unreasonable?

Mr. Moyle: The present arrangements are not conducive to the highest standards of administrative efficiency. There will be an opportunity to look at the matter again.

MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS

Mr. Lawson: asked the Prime Minister if he intends to make a ministerial broadcast on Her Majesty's Government's economic policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) on 27th July.

Mr. Lawson: Since this is clearly an appropriate time, will the Prime Minister explain, in the light of the profound understanding of economics that he displayed during his period as Chancellor,

precisely how it is that the £1,000 million increase in employers' national insurance contributions releases resources for manufacturing industry?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's magnanimous tribute, even though it is belated by about 10 years. I accept it in the spirit in which he made it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an explanation of the increases in national insurance contributions and I have nothing to add to it.

Mr. Watkinson: Does the Prime Minister agree that profits are rising strongly this year and the indications are that they will rise more strongly next year, and that, therefore, now is the time to invest? An integral part of our industrial strategy involves planning agreements. When shall we see the fruits of that?

The Prime Minister: The Price Code gives substantial advantages to industry, and this is certainly an opportunity that managers and employers should grasp. It is an opportunity given to them by the stability they now enjoy as a result of the social contract agreed yesterday. There is a growing acceptance of the idea of planning agreements, especially among larger companies, and the Government intend to speed up those agreements as far as they can.

Mr. Fairbairn: Who and how many are the parties to this so-called contract, and what proportion of the electorate do they represent?

The Prime Minister: Without going into arithmetical proportions, over the last three years the social contract has enabled us to substantially reduce the incidence of strikes. In consequence, I no longer get the same complaints about the interruption of flow of materials into and out of factories, and that also helps exports. In all those and many other circumstances, the contract between the Government, the Labour Party and the trade unions has been of great value to the country, and it might be a little better if the Opposition sometimes acknowledged that.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to the CBI that British industry has a unique contribution to make because of the advantages of


having the lowest level of industrial disputes for nearly 10 years and an undervalued exchange rate, which should give it enormous investment incentives? Does he agree that there is evidence of a strong growth in world markets and that it is high time British industry began to invest more, to get production up and unemployment down?

The Prime Minister: It was indicative of the Opposition's attitude that they jeered through that recital. It is in the national interest that there should now be substantial new investment in a particularly favourable combination of circumstances. There has never been a better opportunity for export-led growth than we have at present—[Interruption.] Why do Opposition Members want to jeer at their country every day? I do not understand it. We have never disguised the difficulties that lie ahead. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will assist in getting across the combination of circumstances that now exists, which will give us an opportunity, in the next two or three years, to prepare for the 1980s—or are the Opposition frightened that we shall succeed?

Mrs. Thatcher: In an earlier reply the Prime Minister stressed how much importance he attaches to securing the agreement of the TUC. Doubtless that applies to the proposals for public expenditure cuts. Does he attach equal importance to securing a clear decision, on a Government motion, on his public expenditure cuts, before the House rises?

The Prime Minister: An announcement will shortly be made about the business for next week—[Hon. Members: "When?"] In due course.

Sir G. Howe: You are wriggling.

The Prime Minister: I would not wriggle in front of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). He is the last one in front of whom I would wriggle. We have announced our policy, and if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to challenge it, she is entitled to do so.

Mrs. Thatcher: I was challenging the Prime Minister to say whether he would dare to table a Government motion on public expenditure cuts and put it to the House. I take it from his reply that the answer is "No".

The Prime Minister: An announcement will be made about this matter. If anybody wishes to challenge the policy, he will be free to do so. The Opposition have the time to challenge that policy—let us see what they do with it. I understood from some remarks by the Opposition spokesman that there was some modified support for our policy. If the Opposition are satisfied with that policy why should we table a motion?

CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will now disband the CPRS.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: May we be sure that the CPRS has not become something of a fifth wheel on the coach of Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I think it has not. I find the papers and submissions prepared by the CPRS extremely valuable as a commentary on the work of Departments. I think that its existence is certainly justified.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Prime Minister consider the whole question of scientific advice available to the Government, since this aspect of policy appears to have been put into cold storage, if not actually destroyed? Would it not be better to spend the money involved in the CPRS on ensuring that the Government are given much better central scientific advice?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The organisation of scientific advice and its application to the work of Departments have concerned me. We reached the conclusion that it was a matter of organisation, but I do not know that there is a perfect answer. It would be better to appoint a chief scientist in each Department, geared into the machine of the Department, rather than to have one central chief scientist who would be responsible for operating over the whole area of activity. It is also intended—although agreement has not yet been reached—to recruit a scientist to the CPRS itself.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Prime Minister aware that if there are to be cuts in public expenditure, many Labour Members will expect them to come at


the top as well as at the bottom? It is felt that there are elements of the work of the CPRS, particularly in its rôle in reviewing the area of foreign affairs, in which one could save public expenditure by getting rid of those elements completely.

The Prime Minister: That is a very prejudiced point of view. There are only 17 members of the CPRS. We shall not save much of the £1,000 million on them. In regard to their work on the Foreign Office review, I thought, when I examined the situation in another capacity, that they could make a valuable contribution. It has become fashionable to attack particular organs of government, but I have seen nothing of the work of the CPRS that leads me to believe that it has fallen away in quality. As one who has had the opportunity of seeing that body at work, I believe that it makes a valuable contribution.

Mr. David Steel: Since the nuclear industry has not developed long-term methods for dealing with nuclear waste, and since there are wide safety and security implications in the wider use of uranium and plutonium, will the Prime Minister say whether the CPRS is involved in decision-making about the future nuclear power station programme of the Government, or is this being left to the Department of Energy? Are we to have more public debate on this matter?

The Prime Minister: It is open to the CPRS to submit any paper it wishes on this nuclear aspect or on any other. Without notice, I cannot say whether it has already done so.

FOOD POLICY

Mr. Hooley: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for Social Services, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection in matters concerning national food policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hooky: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is busy subsidising certain foods, such as sugar and butter, there is a great deal of scientific evidence that these may

be positively dangerous foods if taken in excessive quantities? Will he try to bring into closer consultation those concerned with agricultural prices and medical services in formulating future food policy?

The Prime Minister: I hope that there is already a great deal of medical consultation. On the whole, I believe that people will go on eating what they like without paying over-much attention to the medical consequences. We must of course have certain limitations. I believe that there is already cross-fertilisation between the two Departments to make sure that medical consequences are taken into account.

Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of food distribution will be increased if the Dock Work Regulation Bill is passed and implemented? Will he seriously consider dropping the Bill, since the measure is not popular on either side of the House, in the country, or among the trade unions?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that something should be done between the Departments about the common agricultural policy? Although there is a subsidy on butter and, indeed, a butter mountain, the Common Market countries are now envisaging a levy on margarine. Consequently, the consumer feels that the system is not working in his best interests. Will the Prime Minister take steps to end the CAP as early as possible?

The Prime Minister: From the very beginning the Government, and our predecessors, have had considerable views about the CAP and its impact on consumers. I have asked—and have informed the other Heads of Government on this matter—for a full review of the CAP and its impact and about the requirements that should be made before the next price review takes place in the spring. Clearly it does not work out satisfactorily for us, and one or two proposals from the Commission on these matters seem to be plain daft.

Mr. Watt: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Foreign Office, because between them they


have made a dreadful mess of the fishing policy—or does such a policy exist at all?

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) continues to paddle his own canoe—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or his trawler."] No, he would not paddle a trawler; he would sail it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must be satisfied with the progress being made by my right hon. Friend on fishing policy, in ensuring proper safeguards for our fishermen in future.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I welcome the comments by my right hon. Friend about the need for a review of the CAP, but will he accept that when people have not enough money to buy butter, it is nonsense to increase the price of margarine to such an extent that it is impossible for them to buy that commodity either? Do not some of his friends in Brussels realise that if they lowered the price of dairy produce they might be astonished to see how much of that produce would be bought in the shops?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I can add to my previous rather explosive comment. As I said, it is one of the things that I regard as rather daft.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister say whether he regards the food gap as being as important as the energy gap? May we see some evidence from the Government that they wish to close the food gap?

The Prime Minister: I have, certainly since the Yom Kippur war, been very clear about the serious impact of the energy gap. The food gap is serious, but I have a feeling that there is a great deal of undeveloped potential for producing food. In some cases it is a matter of distribution.

CHINA (EARTHQUAKE)

Mr. Heath: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are ready to offer medical supplies and equipment to the Government of the People's Republic of China to help them to deal with the problems arising out of what is now apparently a major and tragic earthquake disaster.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): Yes, Sir. The Government are, of course, ready to do all that they can to help. Our Embassy in Peking was instructed yesterday to ask the Chinese authorities whether there is any assistance we can offer, for example, in the form of emergency and medical supplies.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a message of condolence. I am sure that the whole House would wish to endorse his expression of sympathy to the Chinese Government and the Chinese people.

Mr. Heath: I am sure that the whole House and the people of Britain will welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement that the Government have already offered assistance in this matter and will join with the Foreign Secretary and Government in their expressions of sympathy.
Does the Foreign Secretary know whether any British citizens or visitors were in the locality of the earthquake when it occurred?

Mr. Crosland: As far as I know at present, all British subjects, certainly in Peking and, as far as can be ascertained, elsewhere in China, are reported safe and well. There has certainly been no suggestion of any British casualties in Peking itself.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend also consider having talks with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy with a view to offering assistance to the mining industry in this important mining town, which will have suffered greatly in the disaster, which will have caused great damage to the Chinese economy?

Mr. Crosland: I shall certainly consider that.

Mr. Churchill: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement of the action he has already taken, but will he in addition consider sending a Hercules aircraft with medical supplies and a medical team, and also not rule out sending a unit of the Royal Engineers, if such would be acceptable, to help in the reconstruction of water supplies?

Mr. Crosland: I am willing to consider any of these suggestions, but we first have to wait and see what answer


we get from the Chinese Government to the offer we have made of any help that would be of use to them. In past cases of assistance of this kind the Chinese Government have been very self-contained in their attitude and have certainly not wanted very demonstrative offers of help from the West. But we have asked them what they want and we shall consider it in the light of their reply.

DIVISION (SICK MEMBERS)

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your assistance concerning the arrangements which might be made today in respect of three Labour Members who are seriously ill and who are travelling to the House and will be in the House this evening, although—[Interruption.] I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of saying anything on this subject against barracking. Three Members of the House are desperately ill and will be in the House in that condition tonight in order to vote in the Division at 11 p.m. I understand—this has nothing to do with you, Mr. Speaker—that the usual arrangements for pairing seriously ill Members have not been afforded—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to come to the part of his question on which I can help and leave the general issue of pairing, which, as he rightly, says, is none of my business. We have a lot of other work before us.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am coming to that. [Interruption.] There are three Members who might die in this House tonight—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members restrain themselves until the hon. Gentleman has indicated to me what I can do to help? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point.

Mr. George Cunningham: These three Members will be in the House tonight[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They will be in the House tonight because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They will be in the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to hon. Members—[Interruption.] Order. Valuable time of the House is being

wasted. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bring his point of order to a conclusion by indicating to me what he thinks I can do.

Mr. Cunningham: The three hon. Members will be in House tonight because they have—[Interruption.] I spy Strangers in the Gallery. Right, if that is what you want—

Notice taken that Strangers were present. Whereupon MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Snape and Mr. Bates: were appointed Tellers for the Noes but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I expect him to come to his point of order immediately.

Mr. George Cunningham: The position is that there are three Members who are seriously ill and who have been refused facilities, as a result of the decision of the Leader of the Opposition. Something serious may happen tonight as a result of that decision—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I greatly deprecate points of order being used for argument.
Later—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Heifer. He has been trying to catch my eye for a long time.

Mr. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always regarded you as one of the most humane and Christian Members of the House, although you are not of my persuasion.
I am sure that you will accept my point of order when you realise that a number of hon. Members, who could be put into very serious medical conditions, are being brought in today from very long distances.
What powers do you have, for instance, to convene an urgent meeting of Mr. Speaker's Conference, to deal with this problem? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the Government's fault."] I do not want to lose my temper with hon. Members opposite, although I have come to the conclusion that some of them do not give a damn about the possibility of hon. Members losing their lives.
I raise this point of order because this problem has been with us for at least as long as I have been a Member of this House. What powers do you have, Mr. Speaker, to solve this problem in a humane and Christian manner in order to avoid hon. Members having to be brought here in a serious medical condition that could lead to loss of life? Some hon. Members do not seem concerned about that, but I would be worried whether the hon. Member concerned was a Conservative, a Liberal or from any other party.
Could you convene an emergency meeting of Mr. Speaker's Conference or take any other action to deal with this fantastically difficult, serious and inhumane situation which has arisen from the actions of the Iron Lady opposite?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Clearly there is nothing at all that I can do this day. Hon. Members who are coming here are now probably on their way.

Mr. George Cunningham: On the heads of the Opposition be it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member had a good innings a little while ago. I have listened to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) with great sympathy as, I am sure, have many hon. Members on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blame the Government Chief Whip."] Order. I shall now move on to business questions. I call Mrs. Thatcher.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a limit to how long points of order can go on when there is a lot of business to be done.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the Welsh temperament very well. I hope

that the hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye on points of order will do me and the House the favour of making them as brief as possible.

Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you satisfied that there is adequate medical provision in the House to deal with people who are seriously sick and who are being brought in because of the gross insensitivity of the Conservative Party?

Mr. Speaker: I can understand points of order about our sick colleagues, but everyone knows that to go on attributing blame is not a point of order.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise a small but practical point which I hope will be heard by the Leader of the House. There are from time to time extra health hazards in this House and we have very good coverage from the two hospitals concerned—St. Thomas's and Westminster. I am simply asking that whenever there is an actual health hazard there should be medical coverage here which does not come from other sources.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the House that I shall make the most thorough inquiries to see that adequate facilities to look after our sick colleagues are present.

Mr. Peyton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some very damaging things have been said—

Mr. George Cunningham: Quite right, too.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stop interrupting from a sedentary position.

Mr. Peyton: There are therefore two very short points that I think that I should make. First, it is the responsibility of the Government Chief Whip whom he brings here and whom he does not on any occasion—

Mr. George Cunningham: The right hon. Lady will not pair.

Mr. Peyton: Secondly, it would be a very strange situation if, on a highly controversial Bill, my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip were to order any Member of his own party to stay out of the Lobby.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is clear that I was doing my utmost in no way to be involved in the arguments other than to express concern about our sick colleagues. I shall make inquiries about the matter.

Later—

Mr. Ridley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since there appear to be several hon. Members who are too sick to come to vote tonight, may I suggest that you invite the Leader of the House to postpone today's business which is controversial, so that we could proceed to discuss instead the National Heath Service (Vocational Training) Bill, which is also a starred Order of the Day, since there may be some inequality due to the lists of sickness tonight?

Mr. Speaker: I think that that completes that round.

MEMBER (TELEPHONE CALL)

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Litterick to speak on a point of order.

Mr. Litterick: rose—

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I can take only one point of order at a time.

Mr. Litterick: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: I called Mr. Litterick on a point of order.

Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, formally to take note of the fact that yesterday afternoon a telephone call that I made from one of the corridor telephones of this building to a member of the public was intercepted by a third party.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members do not listen they will not know whose telephone it was.

Mr. Litterick: I think that the House should take notice, as this is a serious matter. The events that occurred yesterday affect every Member of Parliament as they suggest the possibility—I put it

no stronger than that—that the telephone system of this building is being monitored, with or without the authorisation of the Executive, or that it is possible for the telephone system to be intercepted and monitored by someone else. Therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, to set in hand an investigation on behalf of the House and independently of any other investigations being made by the Executive.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) has raised an important question. I think that a statement may be forthcoming from the Government Front Bench. Otherwise I am prepared to make inquiries into the matter.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Further that that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may help the House if I make a brief intervention.
The statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) on 17th November 1966 and by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on 16th July 1970 about the tapping of hon. Members' telephones apply also to telephones in the Palace of Westminster used by hon. Members.
There can therefore be no justification for the suspicions expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick). I can only speculate on the incident referred to by my hon. Friend. I assume that his conversation took place on an accidentally crossed line—which is not, I fear, outside the experience of any of us—and that the third party took it upon himself to join in.

Mr. Litterick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is reasonable for the Home Secretary to refer to previous incidents. However, the House should also bear in mind that it was discovered in the past that the Executive did this. There have been previous cases. Notwithstanding the assurances that were given by previous Prime Ministers, time has elapsed, and the House has no way of knowing whether the situation has changed. Therefore I insist that an investigation should be put in hand by you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I regard myself as the custodian, in part at least, of the rights of hon. Members. Of course I shall look at the question. But we had a forthright reply from the Home Office.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the debate resumes I hope that the Secretary of State for Industry will clear up an area in respect of which he undoubtedly misled the House last night on the finding of an industrial tribunal inside Wales. Having obtained a transcript of the tribunal's proceedings, I feel that it is vitally important to point out that his statement contained a mis-statement of fact, to the effect that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited had fired workers unfairly for being pro-nationalisation. I hope that the Minister will clear up that matter He made an emotional speech on the matter yesterday, which was clearly untrue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of Ministers' speeches is not for me.

Later—

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in your capacity as defender of the interests of minorities and Back Benchers. Yesterday evening, a vote was taken on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill at six o'clock and a further vote will be taken on the same Bill tonight between eight o'clock and nine o'clock. In his speech winding up that debate yesterday the Secretary of State quoted from the South Wales Echo a story which was only partially true. In today's edition of the paper, the story is printed in full, which gives a completely different picture from that given by the Secretary of State. In those circumstances, how can arrangements be made to allow the Minister to make a further statement to put the record straight for the House?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the hon. Member has put the record straight. What takes place in a debate is settled on the spot by the result of the Division. I accept the results given by the Tellers.

I think that we had better leave that matter until the debate later.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of brevity, could I, through you, say that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has done anything but put the record straight? The record was straight on what my right hon. Friend quoted yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: That shows the danger of saying any thing.

SUB JUDICE RULE

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday I was asked to give a ruling. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) made a considered submission to me on how the Chair should exercise its discretion in permitting reference to be made to matters that are sub judice before the civil courts, in the light of the resolution of the House on the Question of 28th June 1972. I now want to reply to the important issues that he raised.
In the first place, I draw attention to the fact that the resolution of 1972 is prefaced by the phrase
subject to the discretion of the Chair".
This governs all that follows, and places upon me the responsibility of exercising my judgment in each particular case. The remainder of the resolution constitutes guidance by the House as to how it wishes me to exercise my discretion in certain classes of case. Of course I pay very close attention to that guidance.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the case with which he is particularly concerned I have considered whether the ministerial decision was one that could be challenged only on grounds of misdirection or of bad faith, and also whether the issues of national importance set out in the resolution of 1972 applied. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to seek to define those issues more closely than the resolution itself does, although the hon. Member invited me to do so.
I should like to say a word about the sub judice rule in general. It is, as the hon. Member quoted from the 1972 report,
the fundamental responsibility of Parliament to be the supreme inquest of the nation with


the overall responsibility to discuss anything it likes.
It is to enable them to perform that function that hon. Members enjoy absolute privilege to speak in this Chamber without any court being able to question them.
It is also an important principle that Parliament shall not influence, or seem to be seeking to influence, the administration of justice. The sub judice rule is therefore a self-denying ordinance instituted by the House in order to protect that principle. The fact that newspapers sometimes feel free to comment on issues that are still sub judice, as the hon. Member remarked, is another matter, since the courts may deal with them for contempt, and their views do not carry with them the weight of having been delivered in Parliament.
Having made those general remarks, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I recognise that the resolution of 1972 constituted a deliberate relaxation by the House of the sub judice rule in the area of public policy that it does go wider than the Industrial Relations Act; and that I shall exercise my discretion in favour of freer debate in every case in which I consider that I may properly do so.
The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) made a final point about the freedom of Back Benchers to make submissions to me about the exercise of my discretion in particular cases. I assure them that I am always prepared to consider submissions—provided that they do not anticipate my decision by commenting on the matter that is awaiting judicial decision or contain comments that are out of order on other grounds.
In this particular case the hon. Member's object on Tuesday was to submit to me arguments that this particular issue did not fall within our rule on sub judice matters. Had he put forward his argument purely on the basis of the resolutions of the House and past precedents, as indeed he did yesterday, I would certainly have been prepared to hear him out. It was solely because, in my view, he began by reflecting on the courts that I intervened.

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for that ruling, which has clarified the

matter. The 1972 resolution mentioned, among other things, that you should take into account "the essentials of life". I asked you to rule on that, but I understand that you have not felt able to say what it means, just as previous Leaders of the House have not felt able to say what it means. I submit that it can cover social issues, such as the row we had earlier this week, which is continuing, as well as economic and national defence issues.
I very much hope that you would be willing to see the 1972 resolution in that wider context, which includes social issues, when using your proper discretion on this matter in future.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member very much.

INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance now, particularly since we shall shortly be dealing with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
In the past few weeks the representative of a public relations firm called International News Services has been using the House of Commons and Palace of Westminster facilities. I want to seek your confirmation that such a public relations firm can have no advantages just because it has two parliamentary advisers, but that its representative can be considered only as a member of the public and that if he wishes to go, for example, to the Terrace, the Strangers' Bar or other accessible parts, he must have the express authority of an hon. Member and be accompanied by an hon. Member.
In addition, will you confirm that such a public relations firm's representative is not allowed to use the telephones which are scattered around the building? The person to whom I am referring was seen using a police telephone.
This is a serious matter because many hon. Members are open to pressure and wish at some stage to withdraw from such pressure and to seek the haven of the Palace of Westminster for reflection. It seems quite untoward that an hon. Member can be open to hounding by a public relations representative who seems to treat the Palace of Westminster as though he owns it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised an important matter. I shall have inquiries made and will say something to the House in due course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2ND AUGUST—Supply [29th Allotted Day]: The Question will be put on all outstanding Votes.
There will be a debate on public expenditure, on an Opposition motion.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has announced opposed Private Business for consideration.
TUESDAY 3RD AUGUST—Remaining stages of the Bail Bill [Lords] and of the Rating (Charity Shops) Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Police Bill and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Motion on financial assistance to British Leyland.
Motion on sound broadcasting the proceedings of the House.
WEDNESDAY 4TH AUGUST—Second Reading of the Drought Bill [Lords], until about 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
THURSDAY 5TH AUGUST—Remaining stages of the Drought Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 6TH AUGUST—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment until Monday 11th October.

Mrs. Thatcher: Why did the Leader of the House refuse a specific request for a debate on public expenditure cuts in Government time on a Government motion, bearing in mind the fact that the last public expenditure White Paper was not approved by the House, that summer is a difficult time for sterling and that the last time that the Prime Minister referred to the support he expected to get for public expenditure cuts in this House he pointed out on 8th July that it would be

on Labour votes that he would depend for any policies that he placed before the House? Why did the Leader of the House refuse to have a Government motion on public expenditure next week?

Mr. Foot: I expected a vote of thanks from the right hon. Lady. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain. I imagined that the right hon. Lady wanted an occasion on which she would be able to put down a motion and to express her views to the House on these matters without any obstruction or intrusion. That is what has been arranged. I am sure that the debate which we shall have on Monday will enable all sides of the House to put their views clearly both in the debate and in the Lobby.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the fact that we are debating the Drought Bill next week in no way absolves the Government and the Opposition from providing time to debate the regular water shortage in Eastern England and proposals for a national water grid and the storage of river water in the Wash?

Mr. Foot: We cannot debate that next week, although I have no doubt that references to the matter will certainly be in order during discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Molyneaux: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to move the motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Foot: I hope that we shall move that motion on Thursday.

Mr. John Mendelson: As we are now in the last week before the recess, can my right hon. Friend give us a definite date when the Secretary of State for Employment will make his promised statement on jobs for school leavers and alleviating the position of other unemployed people?

Mr. Foot: I hope that it will be on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. I hope that it will be Tuesday.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman be making a statement next week on devolution? If so, will it include the Government's plans for the regions of England?

Mr. Foot: A statement will probably be made—in fact, almost certainly—on


Tuesday. It will be in the form of a White Paper, but there will be a short statement to the House as well. It will contain a reference to the subject which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but it will cover other matters which were left, to be settled later in the previous White Paper.

Mr. Peyton: May I raise first of all a question about last week's business? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will in future be able to arrange business on Fridays so that it does not go on into the night, with great inconvenience to our long-suffering staff.
Returning to this week's business, the right hon. Gentleman has just told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the motion for Monday is her opportunity to have a debate without obstruction or intrusion. I take it that those very clear words mean that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends will not be putting down an amendment to the Opposition motion on Monday, bearing in mind that there can be no precedent for a Government not to have £2,000 million-worth of measures debated in their own time.

Mr. Foot: On the first question, I certainly appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about the inconvenience for the House as a whole and especially for the servants of the House, who have had very heavy burdens placed upon them over recent weeks. I certainly appreciate what he says about the high desirability of avoiding late debates on a Friday. We shall do the very best that we can to avoid that. However, it was the case that last Friday, particularly in view of the important Northern Ireland business that had to be discussed, the House had to sit until late.
On the second matter, the right hon. Gentleman says that I have referred to no obstruction or intrusion and he is assuming that we would not put down an amendment to the motion tabled by the Opposition. I should think that very likely that is so, but we must see what the motion is before we decide the matter. It would be very unwise for anyone to say that he would not put down an amendment before he had actually seen the motion. However, certainly if we can accommodate the Opposition on

that aspect of the matter as well, we shall do our best to do so.
As for the last question, all the proposals that have been put forward by the Government will be subject to the normal parliamentary processes at the normal parliamentary times. What the House will have an opportunity of doing on Monday is to debate the matter on a motion, which I should have thought suitable for the Opposition even if it turns out badly for them in the end.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the genuine distress on both sides of the house about the problem of sick Members coming in. Without getting involved in the argument, is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider putting down a motion, perhaps next week, for a free vote, when the House would be asked to allow those who are sick to vote by proxy? [Interruption.] I said a motion on the Floor of the House on a free vote, so that all hon. Members will have the opportunity to say what they want to say, so that on the basis of producing a medical certificate, adequately signed, Members can vote when they are sick. Does my right hon. Friend not know that such a motion would receive the overwhelming support of the majority of the House?

Mr. Foot: I certainly listened to the views expressed earlier. What my right hon. Friend has suggested is one approach to the problem. If we could discover another solution to it, we should be very glad to do that. I certainly think that there ought to be some proper system for pairing Members who are sick. We would certainly be in favour of it. However, if the House would like to have a motion on the subject, we would consider that, too.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will recall that the Public Lending Right Bill passed all its stages in the House of Lords in the early part of this year, that it began its Second Reading in this House in May, that it is supported by both Front Benches and that there have been three bites at the Second Reading cherry. As this is not therefore entirely unrepresentative, what assurance can he give us on the subject? Will he


approach the Opposition officially with a view to ensuring—as I know that he personally wishes—that the Bill is secured and is on the statute book by the end of the Session?

Mr. Foot: It is not a question of the views of the official Opposition on the subject. I think that the Oppositon support the Bill. Certainly it is the Government's desire that the Bill should proceed. Some hon. Members in other parts of the House take a different view. It is our wish that the Bill should proceed to the statute book. It has passed through another place, and we hope that when the House meets after the recess we shall be able to carry the Bill through and put it on the statute book.

Sir Bernard Braine: The Leader of the House will recall that a little earlier the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs told us of a very welcome approach to the Chinese authorities in response to my right hon. Friend's question. He will know that the essence of help in these situations is speed. Can he give us an undertaking that the Foreign Secretary will report to the House next week the result of any approaches to Peking?

Mr. Foot: I am not sure about a report to the House, but I shall convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that, in saying what he has said, he was speaking for everyone in the House, and that we would want the maximum assistance to be given with the maximum speed. I am sure that that is the desire in all parts of the House, following the question that has been raised.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his undivided attention to the fact that during the recess inshore fishermen will continue to go to sea in a state of total uncertainty about the future of their industry? Is he ready to advise the Foreign Office that it must if necessary declare unilaterally a 200-mile limit and within that be ready to be firm with the EEC that we need a 50-mile exclusive limit, because nothing else will satisfy inshore fishermen?

Mr. Foot: I am always eager to advise the Foreign Office, and very often that

is of the highest assistance to it. However, I cannot assure the hon. Lady that I shall give my undivided attention to this matter. Other matters may crop up. However, I shall certainly bear in mind what she has said.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the measures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 22nd July amounted to a mini-Budget, with substantial increases in taxation as well as expenditure cuts? In the light of this, is the right hon. Gentleman proud of the precedent that is being set by refusing to allow the House the opportunity of discussing a mini-Budget in Government time?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed on every aspect of the question. We are not refusing the House time to discuss the matter.

Mr. Lawson: Government time.

Mr. Foot: We are not refusing the House the opportunity to discuss these matters in Government time. None of these measures will be put into operation until it has been discussed in the House and until the House has had an opportunity to vote upon it.

Mr. Jay: Do the Government intend to lay before the House next week the proposed Order on poultry meat?

Mr. Foot: I think that the regulations are now complete and I believe that my hon. Friend will be presenting them to the House next week, but there will still be plenty of time when we return after the recess for discussion of the matter in the House.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the business for next week, for the debate on Wednesday 4th August on Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, hon. Members may hand into my office by 9 o'clock on the morning of Tuesday 3rd August their names and the topics that they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
The debate on Second Reading of this Bill is, to quote page 745 of "Erskine May",
commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy.
It covers, for example, all the main Estimates originally presented for the current financial year in House of Commons Papers 266 and 276, and the revised and supplementary Estimates presented since then in House of Commons Papers 483 and 484.
It will be in order on Second Reading to raise any topic falling within the compass of those Estimates.
I shall put out the result of the ballot later on 3rd August.

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), further considered.

Clause 19

VESTING IN BRITISH AEROSPACE OR BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS OF SECURITIES OF SCHEDULED COMPANIES

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move Amendment No. 220, in page 21, line 3, at end insert—
'(4A) Where a company named in Schedule 2, of whose property a receiver has been appointed, the Corporation shall purchase from the receiver its existing assets at a value to be determined by agreement between the Corporation and the receiver as on the date of the coming into operation of this Act'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 221, in page 21, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 222, in Schedule 2, page 75, line 5, at end insert 'Drypool Group Ltd.'.

Mr. McNamara: We have spent a long time discussing other parochial matters in this Bill. We have had a major row on a constitutional issue concerning one local company—namely, Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited. I make no apology for raising a matter of vital concern not only immediately to the constituencies of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) but to the general prosperity and well-being of industry generally on North Humberside and of the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry in particular.
We had a short debate on this topic in Committee. In that debate I rehearsed the arguments why my hon. Friends and I felt that the Drypool Group should be back within the Bill. Originally, when we fought an election on Humberside, we fought it for the nationalisation of the


aircraft and shipbuilding industries. We fought it for the nationalisation of Brough and Drypool.
In the first Bill, which was published on 30th April 1975, the Drypool Group was included in the provisions for nationalisation. However, following the change at the Department of Industry, when the present Secretary of State replaced my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Energy, a second Bill was published, from which the Dry-pool Group was excluded.
We have to ask why the Drypool Group was excluded. The answer is that it went bankrupt and brought in a receiver. However, if that alone were the case for not nationalising or taking into public ownership any industry, there would have been no help given to Rolls-Royce, to Chrysler, or to many other nationalised industries that have been taken into public ownership.
The company went bankrupt. Immediately the announcement was made, my hon. Friends and I spent a considerable time lobbying Ministers, who expressed great sympathy for the situation, but did nothing other than to say that they would not now nationalise Drypool and that it would be far better for what was left of the group to be taken into private ownership and sold off by the receiver rather than be taken into public ownership.
I must say that that augurs well for those other parts of the shipbuilding industry that are said to be in a very precarious position. Some of them would not exist if they did not have the benefit of help from the Government, which was denied to Drypool and other shipbuilding industries on Humberside.
We were then left with a situation in which the Government recommended that the companies should not be nationalised. Supported by some of my hon. Friends, I tried in Committee to get that position reversed. I was not successful, and since that time a number of the companies within the Drypool Group have been sold off to private industry, including the Selby Yard and the Beverley Yard.
Therefore, we are left with what, in a parochial sense, is the core of the whole problem for me and my hon.

Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East—in other words, the yards in our constituencies, which still employ about 300 men, to whom we gave an undertaking, both on the hustings and since, that we would press for the nationalisation of their yards, which undertaking we are carrying out now. I can assure the House that this is no part of any sham exercise.
We have the situation, theerfore, that parts of the Drypool Group have been sold off. Other parts have not been sold off. Though I regret to have to admit it, obviously it would be unsatisfactory if we tried to bring back into the ambit of public ownership those parts which have been sold off already to private industry. I concede that point, though I regret having to do so.
But there are the parts which are left, which are in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. Those are parts that have not yet been sold off. Therefore the amendment has two objectives. It seeks to meet the changed situation of the Drypool Group, and it seeks to meet the situation in terms of the major argument which the Minister of State advanced in Committee that because of the period of time taken as the average over which compensation should be paid to shareholders, it would involve the payment of compensation to shareholders in a bankrupt company.
On that occasion I put it to the Minister that, if that was the substance of his argument against accepting my amendment, surely it was not beyond the wit of man, though perhaps it was beyond that of the Government, to find a way round the difficulty, as had been shown to be possible by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he was Prime Minister and was dealing with Rolls-Royce.
In my view, we could say that in the case of a company which was bankrupt the Government would merely pay the value of its assets. Therefore, the amendment seeks to say that where a receiver has been appointed—as has happened in this case—the corporation shall purchase from the receiver its existing assets held by the receiver at the time of the coming into operation of the Act at a value to be determined by agreement between the corporation and the receiver.
That is what the amendment says. It says nothing that could conflict either with public policy or with what is contained in the Bill. It contains nothing to conflict with public policy because we are not confiscating. We are paying compensation, and paying compensation for fixed assets.
I put it to my hon. Friend that he has an opportunity between now and the coming into operation of the Bill either to ensure that the jobs of the men concerned are protected, and that the industry is protected on Humberside, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, by being sold to some private industry—which I should find difficult to accept from a Labour Government—or to say that, from the date of the coming into operation of the Bill, the assets will be taken over by the new corporation.

Mr. Tom King: As I understand Amendment No. 220, the hon. Gentleman is proposing that the corporation shall purchase from the receiver the assets of the company at an agreed fair market valuation. Does he think it would be right that the same principle should be applied to all the companies being acquired and that in each case the assets should be purchased at a fair price?

Mr. McNamara: Every company in bankruptcy which is taken over—[Interruption.] This company is bankrupt. I should hate to make the Bill a hybrid. I am dealing with only one class of company at a time. If a company is bankrupt, let us pay for the assets. We want the creditors to be treated honourably. I am after no quick buck and no confiscation. Let the creditors be treated honourably.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) for enabling me to make this point, because it drives home that the hon. Gentleman supports my view that we should compensate the creditors fairly on the face value of the company's assets.
4.30 p.m.
My amendment will still give the Government time to do what was originally envisaged when the whole exercise of nationalisation was first thought of. It was envisaged that on Humberside, in an

area of very high unemployment and with few opoprtunities of skilled work for school leavers and where we had had a number of body blows to our economy, for which the Government had done very little to compensate—the closures of Thorn Electrics in my constituency and of Imperial Typewriters in East Hull, the threatened close-down of Humber St. Andrews, partly in my constituency and partly in that of my hon. Friend—here was an opportunity for the Government to say to Humberside, "We appreciate your need for skilled work and here on Humberside we can build a small boats division of the new shipbuilding corporation." That is what we were after. It is still possible. There are still being taken into public ownership the shipyards at Goole. There are still being taken into public ownership the ship repairing facilities of Humber Grading.
It is still possible for the Government to have a strong and viable nationalised shipbuilding sector on Humberside based upon the yards that are there. At this stage my right hon. Friend the Minister could say that what this party undertook as part of its policy, and what was its policy until the publication of this Bill, to the extent that it can be honoured, will be honoured and that he will take these parts of the industry into public ownership.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Sneaker: Before I call the next hon. Member I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Finance Act 1976
2. Iron and Steel (Amendment) Act 1976
3. Protection of Birds (Amendment) Act 1976
4. Stornoway Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1976
5. River Medway (Flood Relief) Act 1976
6. Suffolk Coastal District Council Act 1976
7. Yorkshire Water Authority (River Derwent) Act 1976

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Question again proposed.

Mr. James Johnson: We have listened to an accurate and excellent contribution by my colleague the Member for Kingston-uponHull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Speaking as a Hull Member and Chairman of the Yorkshire Group of Labour MPs, I can endorse the facts of economic life as he has stated them. During Committee six months ago this firm was literally in a shambles and it was in the hands of Mr. Smith, an excellent receiver.
In this context I should also like to confirm the state of our economy. We in Hull and North Humberside have a continuing malaise and there is a curious dichotomy in our day-to-day life in that, on the one hand, we can boast of being the gateway to Europe with enormous prospects and benefits from the Common Market, with our motorways opening up—the M62 and the M18 to the West—and, on the other hand, when I talk to full-time union officials of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, the General and Municipal Workers, the Transport and General Workers, and the Boilermakers Society, men who are in the docks or employed in this industry, I find gloom and despondency about the future. All of them condemn the Government for what, for want of a better term, I can only call their nonchalance towards us on the Humber.
From time to time deputations descend on the Government in Whitehall to see Ministers on Bills such as this and the Fisheries Bill. We go back with no joy and no booty whatever. We are getting body blows like these and the Icelandic Agreement constantly, so our male unemployment is at least 10 per cent. and may be as high as 10·6 per cent. Candidly, my concern as a constituency Member is about jobs for my own people. To be quite blunt, I want jobs in whatever shape or form I can get them, whether in the public sector or in a mixed economy.
Five or six months ago shipbuilding affairs were catastrophic. I wish to quote and endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon

Hull, Central in Standing Committee six months ago:
But there is evidence that if something positive is not done, if we do not nationalise the yards, the important ship repairing and shipbuilding industries on Humberside are to be lost—for ever."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24th February 1976; c. 1158.]
That was six months ago and time has marched on. As my hon. Friend said initially, Selby and Beverley are now back in business.
I understand from our city development committee, though here I may be corrected, that our yard in Hull may also have been the subject of discussion, certain people wishing to take it over. That is the current position, but that is not what the amendment is saying. As my hon. Friend was careful to point out, it talks of the present situation when there should be an agreement between the corporation and the receiver as on the date of coming into operation of the Bill. I shall listen with extreme care to what the Minister says in reply to this debate about the terms on which he views a possible transaction along the lines envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central. How much compensation does he envisage? Does this make sense to my hon. Friends, to those in Hull, to the Minister and other hon. Members?
We have talked of bankruptcy and have used such terms as "hybridity" and "hybridisation", though I wonder whether there is such a word. I want a clear definition of what is meant by all this. I want the Minister to state the implications to the work force and to the Government.
In addition to feeling it my duty as a constituency Member to find out what the Minister intends to do, I also made an effort to find out the views of the unions in Hull on this subject. I have discussed it locally and I find intense scepticism about Government action. One union official, for example, felt that if the Government are to place orders, it would be better for this firm to be nationalised, since the Government could then be expected to place orders within its own public sector.
Offsetting this I found another view, which I emphasised earlier, the feeling that Humberside, is the last place to get


orders. We are last in the queue, unfortunately, unlike Scotland and Wales, about which we get argument and discussion about devolution, nationalism, chauvinism, and similar movements. In short, on Humberside, there is deep resentment by the unions, the work force, the businessmen and councillors about the way in which we tend to be placed not only down the queue, but even behind the corner. It is the view of the chairman of my city development committee that if we had been in Scotland six months ago, we should not have been put down as many people feel we were.
The message I wish to give to the Minister is that I shall listen carefully and weigh his words to me. At this moment I have no intention of voting against the Government. I shall wait to hear what the Minister has to say. I have never yet voted against the Government. It is not usually my intention to do so and I was not sent here to do so, but I shall listen carefully and weigh up all that he has to say.

Mr. John Prescott: I am not one to prolong discussion on a matter that is clearly very much the concern of the Hull area, but the important principles involved affect other areas, and matters brought up on this issue will be of some consequence to a number of constituencies when the reorganisation and rationalisation of the ship repairing industry takes place. One is not unsympathetic to the problems that will face ship building and ship repairing but perhaps this aspect has been overestimated in considering the problems of a shipbuilding area with some ship repair and not taking into account the contribution that can come from small ship development taking place in the area.
It is clear that the Labour Government attempted to include the Drypool group in the First nationalisation Bill that it introduced after the first election in 1974. We believe that the group should have been included in this new Bill, even though some parts of it have been sold off to the private sector.
I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the arguments that we have deployed to justify the cause of nationalisation in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. We use those same arguments now—inadequate investment,

employment productivity, bad management. All these things contributed to the collapse of the Drypool group. The events were somewhat precipitated. If the liquidity problem with which this company is faced had occurred 12 months later, it would have been included in the Bill. This is no reason to leave it out. The fundamental arguments for naionalisation are still sound, apply in this case, and have directly contributed to the collapse of Drypool.
I have looked at the arguments put forward by the Government to justify excluding the Drypool group, but I find them very difficult to explain to my constituents. The Government have argued different points on different occasions. First, they have claimed that the company is now bankrupt and lacks liquidity to finance ships which it had on order, and this kind of money—between £1,500,000 and £2 million—is not made available under the Industry Act. Therefore, the company was allowed to go to the wall. I know that is rather simplifying the argument, but basically it is one of bankruptcy. This is not an argument against taking over the industry; the bankruptcy has been precipitated by the financial events of the time.
Secondly, the Government have given the reason why the group has had no new orders for two years. Very few shipyards in Britain or round the world are in the fortunate position of receiving orders in the last few years because there have been considerable difficulties in this field. But there is evidence that business is picking up. Our problem is no different from that of other yards.
What sticks in the workers' throats in my area when they are told that they are not being profitable or making enough money with new orders is the fact that our orders have been going to places like Aberdeen, which are being subsidised. It comes a bit thick from the Government responsible for the regional employment premium to give it to our major competitors and to say that our yards are not profitable. They are playing off other yards in other parts of the country against Humberside. When jobs are denied to us, they go instead to other yards, which are being given subsidies and which are our major competitors. This is not an argument that I accept with a great deal of conviction.
Thirdly, the Government claim that our yards are making a loss on each order. That also sticks in the throat. Very few yards anywhere in the world are making money on any orders. That is why Governments are falling over themselves to give money to shipowners to order ships in their own yards. Maritime Fruit Carriers is a classic example of that.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when speaking on 27th July in the debate on the Belfast yards, referred to losses on orders. He said:
The £60 million that we then provided to the end of 1978 was to cover prospective losses. Every ship being made is made at a loss. The £60 million is to cover losses in Harland and Wolff."—[Official Report, 27th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 393.]
Every ship being built is built at a loss, yet this is one of the points being made against our yards being nationalised.
4.45 p.m.
The point that is painfully clear to me is that the political consequences of allowing Harland and Wolff and Clydebank to go to the wall are far greater than those of allowing Humberside to go. In Humberside there is not enough political pull to make the Government realise the facts about unemployment in our area.
These arguments are hardly ones that a constituency Member can take back to his constituents. The Government have not given proper consideration to the contribution that Humberside can make to small ship development. At the moment Humberside takes 11 per cent. of small ship traffic into its ports. One of the reasons why we have the Dock Work Regulation Bill is the technical developments in recent years.
The Government's basic argument in letters and correspondence from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Industry is that the best formula is to allow these yards to go to the wall. They claim that the yards should be sold off separately to the private yards, as this is the best way of providing jobs. Against that background, the analysis is that somehow private capital will go in, buy the yards, and provide jobs, thus solving our problems. These firms have been given Government money to help them buy the

yards, and the money given has been greater in total than the amount asked for by the company to sustain it as a group.
We are left with unemployment in Hull, and jobs have been found in the Conservative areas, which is hardly likely to be attractive from our political point of view. We Labour Members in Hull are not convinced by the arguments put forward and we do not think that those arguments are borne out by the facts. It is necessary and urgent that the Government should carry out their election commitment—the one on which we fought the election—and include Dry-pool yards in the Bill. The Government should bear in mind the ever-increasing rate of unemployment in our areas. At the moment it is 15,000 in Hull alone, or 10 per cent. of the working population.
The Department of Industry has been very much involved in decisions in Hull in the last few years. We had the situation last year in which Imperial Typewriters collapsed. This company could have been saved by the Department, had it been prepared to take on the multinational and bring in import controls on typewriters. We have also faced the rapid decline of the fishing industry and the consequences of that decline. In addition, the effect of VAT on caravans has hit Humberside more than most areas. The Government should recognise that we have a special unemployment problem, which is not as massive as that of Belfast or the Clyde, but is exactly the same in terms of percentages.
On Humberside, we are also faced with 13 per cent. of youths being unemployed in a largely unskilled area—more so than the national average. Opportunities for apprenticeships and training have declined in recent years. Four years ago 120 apprenticeships a year were provided in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. In 1974 there were 84 provided. In 1975 this number was reduced to 75, of which 30 were Government-sponsored. This year, there are less than 50 apprenticeships, of which 30 are Government-sponsored. It seems that the whole of the Humberside shipbuilding and ship repairing industries have opted out of this responsibility. Only the Goole shipyard, which is part of the Swan Hunter


group, has held its own and is taking apprentices and training youngsters. The State should make a larger contribution to that end, and I hope that the Government will look at this problem.
The Department have a report, which has not yet been made public, which shows that small ships have a future in terms of growth and development, and that Humberside is the best site for that. It is a pity that a nationalised industry has not chosen to build at Brigham & Cowan, which was one of the yards taken over from Court Line, for which the Government must take the credit. They should now build on that sector and include the Drypool group, taking in Brigham & Cowan to further the development of the building and repair of small ships.
If I am told that there are no orders I must tell my hon. Friend that the evidence of the last few months from the companies which are considering taking over the yards is that there are plenty of orders and that work is available. That is why these companies are in the market for some of the yards. If they can work under private ownership, why can they not work under nationalisation?
We politicians know that at times we fight elections and make promises which we are not able to carry out. We confess to the electorate and take the consequences. But there are promises about which we feel keenly, and the promise to nationalise Drypool comes into that category. We fought an election on nationalisation. I believe that it provides the answer to this industry's problems. We put the proposal in our manifestos and in our Bills. To withdraw now, on grounds that do not stand up to examination, is totally unacceptable.
I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) have two of the yards in our constituencies, and we appreciate what will be the consequences of unemployment there. Those consequences are unacceptable to us. If the Government cannot implement the policy on which we fought an election, it is up to the individual Member to attempt to get that policy through. The Government, we believe, must accept our amendment, or something like it. In Hull the Depart-

ment of Industry has a bad name. It has almost become the Department of Unemployment, and the electorate there talk about having to become Yorkshire nationalists before they get anything done. I reject this view but demand that the amendment be accepted by the Government.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): If anyone is a Yorkshire nationalist it is I, since I was born in Yorkshire and educated there. My family still lives there. I shall be going back there in a few days.

Mr. Tom King: Lucky old Yorkshire.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, it is lucky. It has my hon. Friends who represent Hull, and it has me, but it does not have the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
I appreciate the case that my hon. Friends have been advancing for a considerable time. If it were possible consistently and sensibly to accept their amendments I should be glad to do so. However, accepting them would not only do my hon. Friends and their constituents no good; it would do their constituents and the Labour Government positive harm. My hon. Friends are not happy about what has developed, but I hope that they will understand that the situation that has developed cannot be reversed, because time has gone by and changes have taken place.
Since my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) raised the matter in Committee the amendments have been overtaken by events. The receiver has sold the Selby yard to United Towing Limited, the Hull-based tug owning company. As well as building vessels for other owners, the Selby yard will be able to fulfil orders for its new owners' fleet. Whitby Shipyard Ltd. has entered into a contract with the receiver for the purchase of the Beverley yard. Until he has completed the remaining vessel at Beverley, which he contracted to complete, Whitby Shipyard and the receiver will occupy the establishment side by side. The receiver has also sold Nos. 1 and 2 dry docks in Hull to the Yorkshire Dry Dock Company, while he is continuing to seek purchasers for other facilities.

Mr. Prescott: This is an important point, on which the Minister has his facts wrong. The purchase of the Yorkshire Dry Dock Company has not reached the stage of an exchange of contracts. For a number of reasons the company has withheld, and at this stage the sale is not completed.

Mr. Kaufman: My information is as I have put it. If my hon. Friend's information turns out to be right I shall seek a method of correcting what I have said. In the meantime, I must stand on the information that I am supplied with.

Mr. McNamara: Since my hon. Friend will be speaking for several minutes, will he arrange for a telephone call to be made so that the question can be clarified before the debate concludes?

Mr. Kaufman: We are seeking to do that, and I shall acknowledge the fact if I am wrong.
The receiver is continuing to seek purchasers for the other facilities. In the Government's view the group was not viable as a whole and we believe that employment could best be preserved by allowing the receiver to find purchasers for the various facilities. His success so far bears out this decision.
That is the position about the disposal of the yards, but the amendments that my hon. Friends have proposed are not only unacceptable but positively damaging, because of the compensation arrangements. If the amendments were carried the shareholders of the Drypool Group Ltd would have to be compensated fully on the basis set out in the Bill. The shareholders would receive compensation equal to the estimated value of their shares in the reference period September 1973 to February 1974. At that time there seemed no reason to doubt the viability of the group. The managing director of the company wrote to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Industry on 19th August 1974 asking to be excused nationalisation on the grounds of the efficiency of the company. If the managing director's letter had turned out to be an accurate reflection of the prospects of the company during the reference period—it is not possible to say whether that is so or not—the share-

holders would do very well indeed out of my hon. Friends' amendments. The amendments would not do much good to the workers in Hull, however.
The investigations that took place following the appointment of a reciever last year have demonstrated to the Government's satisfaction that the yards in the group stand by far the best chance of survival as viable concerns if they are run as separate units rather than remaining under the umbrella of a single company.

Mr. McNamara: I cannot see how the compensation clauses bear upon this issue, in view of the drafting of the amendment. My hon. Friend is putting forward the argument that we heard in Committee. I have taken advice on how to meet the problem he mentions—a problem that has arisen since the Selby yard was sold. I cannot understand why, if we buy assets from the receiver at existing value under an agreement between the receiver and British Shipbuilders, we should have to pay the shareholders. The amendment provides that we should buy assets, not pay compensation.

Mr. Kaufman: I am sorry, but the situation is as I have described it. My hon. Friend may well have received advice, but it does not bear upon the problem that I have described.
5.0 p.m.
Many of the assets of the Drypool Group Ltd. have been sold to buyers or are under negotiation. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant to the payment of compensation. We have to pay compensation on the basis of the value of the group during the reference period, regardless of the amendment. My hon. Friend knows that, because of the assets that have been sold off, if we vest the Dry-pool Group Ltd. in the corporation the underlying assets will be very few. We shall be paying the full compensation value for the shares in the company because, if a company is named in a schedule—that is what my hon. Friend seeks to do—it follows that the shareholders of the company must receive compensation. That is how the Bill stands. Therefore, the device which my hon. Friend is seeking to adopt to circumvent the situation which I describe would not be successful.
The financial affect of Amendment No. 220 would be disastrous. I must make clear that there is nothing whatever in the amendment which in any way removes the need to pay full compensation under the existing provisions of the Bill to the shareholders of the Drypool Group Ltd. The amendment will impose an additional cost to the corporation because it requires it to purchase from the receiver the assets of the group at a value to be determined by agreement between the corporation and the receiver as on the date of the coming into operation of the Bill. That would not be a substitute liability; it would be an additional financial liability on the corporation. It would be paying a great deal for hardly any assets.
The practical effect for the group, if it were inserted in the Bill, would be on vesting date to repay all the creditors of the group their outstanding debts. This would be an additional expense to the corporation. My hon. Friend would be vesting hardly anything but paying out three times over to the shareholders and creditors of a bankrupt company to whom the Government are not liable under the Bill. My hon. Friend would not be doing anything for his constituents but would be doing a great deal for the shareholders and creditors.
The overall effect of my hon. Friend's amendment would be to increase the commencing capital debt of the British Shipbuilders Corporation by the amount of the compensation that would have to be paid to the shareholders of a company that is now quite worthless. It would also saddle the corporation with the cost of buying back the assets from the receiver and, in addition, paying off the creditors. It would be very good indeed for them, very bad for the finances of the corporation and not do an atom of good for the constituents of my hon. Friend who is speaking in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I hesitate to intervene in a private argument between the Minister of State and his hon. Friend, but he keeps on implying that none of his hon. Friend's constituents could possibly benefit if compensation were paid to the shareholders. How can he assume that none of the hon. Member's constituents is a shareholder of the group?

Mr. Kaufman: I accept that the speculative population of Kingston upon Hull is not so numerous as that of Havant and Waterloo. I accept also that it is conceivable that the odd person in Hull might be a shareholder in Drypool, but my hon. Friends are not here speaking for the shareholders. That is not the purpose of their amendment. Its purpose is to try to do something for the shipyard workers in their constituencies. My hon Friends will not achieve anything in that direction by the amendment, but they will benefit other people whom they are in no way seeking to help who would be directly helped by the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke about the problem of unemployment in Humberside. That is a different problem, and a serious one. I am sorry that my hon. Friend was so negative about the work of the Department of Industry there. As he will know from close acquaintance with the situation, although it is distressing in many ways, a number of initiatives have been taken that are achieving certain results. My hon. Friend was fair in saying that Hull is not a development area. On the other hand, it is an intermediate area and thereby receives many benefits. Regional development grants at 20 per cent. are available. Selective financial assistance is available for new investment projects. The area has benefited a great deal in recent years from advance factory building and it has a reasonably well-diversified industrial base. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) pointed out that communications had been improved following the opening of the M62.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: May I ask for clarification to assist the Minisster's hon. Friend? Does the hon. Gentleman reckon that unemployment at the end of the year will be lower or higher than it is now?

Mr. Kaufman: It is impossible for me to make that forecast. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) is sitting where his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) usually sits, and the right hon. Member for Sidcup when he sat on the Front Bench always refused to make forecasts of that kind. Once again, the right hon. Member for Worcester, is repudiating his right hon. Friend and his attitudes.

Mr. Peter Walker: May I ask the Minister a question of fact? Is unemployment in the area higher or lower now than it was when he took office?

Mr. Kaufman: Of course it is higher. It is higher because of the policies of his then right hon. Friend Lord Barber, which he so happily espouses and of which he is now probably one of the few exponents in the House.
Hull has an important rôle to play in the offshore oil market. Several firms are already working on offshore-related contracts. The area is benefiting from three important projects under the Accelerated Projects Scheme introduced by the Government. They are a major new pharmaceutical factory by Reckitt and Coleman, the Lindsey oil refinery, and BP Chemicals' new acetic acid plant. These projects will consolidate Humberside's already strong position in the chemical and petrochemical industries.

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman is being complacent.

Mr. Kaufman: I am not being as complacent as the right hon. Gentleman was when he told us that his plan to run down the British Steel Corporation would create hundreds of thousands of extra jobs, and when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State humiliated him. That was one of the greatest humiliations that even the right hon. Gentleman suffered in the House.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the Minister consider that the Government's failure to do anything about steel modernisation, so that Port Talbot and Redcar will not be producing steel next year at cheaper prices for export, is to the advantage or disadvantage of the British economy?

Mr. Kaufman: I hope that you will allow me to answer that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the right hon. Gentleman's question is in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Yes, the Chair will allow it. After that, perhaps we may get back to the question under discussion.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman is out of touch now, otherwise he would know that in the three years since the Government came to office the investment programme under the modernisa-

tion scheme has reached £1,400 million—£300 million in the first year, £500 million in the second year and £600 million in the third year. That is a great deal better than the disgraceful interference with the activities of the British Steel Corporation and the Joint Steering Group by the right hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and all the rest of their fatuous incompetence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that honour on both sides is now satisfied. May we return to the amendment?

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Member for Worcester should not have drifted in at this point.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Have mercy on him.

Mr. Kaufman: I now have the information that has been requested. Perhaps I should be grateful to the right hon. Member for Worcester for intervening and allowing time for it to be obtained. Negotiations with the Yorkshire Dry Dock Company Limited for Nos. 1 and 2 dry docks in Hull are proceeding. The company is already using facilities for repair work and will continue to do so.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Oh.

Mr. Kaufman: I said that if I were wrong I should admit it. I am not like the hon. Gentleman, who never admits anything.
As for the need to provide jobs, offers of selective financial assistance of about £3·2 million had been made up to 31st March of this year for 35 projects in the Hull area, involving capital expenditure of £20 million and the creation of over 2,000 new jobs, with a further 1,000 safeguarded. That is what we are doing to help employment in Hull. I do not say that it is everything that needs to be done, but it is a considerable achievement. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
Although the amendment is well intentioned, it would not do what my hon. Friends want. It would not achieve the various things that they wish to bring about.

Mr. Tom King: I intervene only briefly. The Minister of State has explained to those representing Hull constituencies that there are appalling difficulties involved in offering compensation and that it would be impossible to prevent the creditors or shareholders of the previous group from receiving additional payments.
The Hull Members will now realise why we consider the present payment terms to be so ludicrous and the whole system totally inadequate. They have found the other side of the problem—namely, that payments for compensation are unlinked with reality. The Minister of State has explained to them that the Government cannot pay compensation for what is now as they will have to pay for what was in terms of share prices in 1973–74. Situations have changed and not only in respect of Drypool Group Ltd. A quite different situation now exists, but the Minister of State has said that he cannot do anything about it and that it would be necessary to pay on the basis of a previous situation. This is a problem that will have to be faced when dealing with other companies.
A Press report was issued on Government assistance and the funds that they are giving to help the companies they are taking over. It said that assurances were given that the Selby yard would remain outside the nationalised shipbuilding industry, and that the company had received from the Government an undertaking that there would be adequate protection for it against unfair competition and any disadvantage caused by operating outside the public sector. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister of State what form those undertakings took and whether they are available generally to the British shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Kaufman: A Press statement was issued, which I shall make available to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to paraphrase it as it was a carefully phrased statement. I believe that he has not reflected it accurately. Therefore, it would be as well if I procure a copy for him.
Yesterday Opposition Members were critical of the practice of reading extracts from newspapers, but I now have the report of the tribunal, which is even more devastating than the Press report that I read to the House. However, I shall

make the Press statement available to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). As for assurances about fair trading, they are contained in the new clause which the House agreed. There is no special assurance apart from the assurance of fair trading that we inserted into the Bill, stemming from the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).

Mr. James Johnson: My hon. Friend is understandably concerned about the amount of compensation to be paid in the event of the amendment being passed. Has he made any estimate of the compensation that would be involved? Is it possible to make an estimate?

Mr. Kaufman: It would have to be negotiated. That is one of the problems.

Mr. Prescott: It would not be any more than if we had nationalised them in the past.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who confirmed the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I made, namely, that although negotiations are going on for Yorkshire No. 1 and No. 2, the dry docks, which do not involve either of the refit docks, we understand that contracts have not yet been exchanged and that the matter is still subject to considerable discussion. Perhaps the most important discussions are taking place tomorrow. There is doubt about the whole situation.
Even if my hon. Friend the Minister of State deals with Yorkshire No. 1 and No. 2 in my constituency, he will not have dealt with the situation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The dry fitting dock is not included. That will mean the loss of a couple of hundred jobs come October. My hon. Friend has not really met the point. Nor has he mentioned the various points that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull. East made about training, apprenticeships and the supply of skilled work. He has also failed to meet the amendment. He has spoken long and eloquently about compensation without mentioning any figures.
We took careful advice upstairs about the amendment. If the worst happened from my hon. Friend's point of view and the best from mine and the amendment were to be accepted, the situation would be no worse than when the White Paper and the first Bill were published. Money would still have to be paid. We would still have to pay the money that we would have been prepared to pay had the companies been strong at that time and come within the ambit of the second Bill.
In the face of this sudden favour that private industry has with my right hon. Friends, especially small shipyards, if the amendment goes through, the negotiations take place and we get rid of Yorkshire No. 1 and No. 2 and solve the problem of the refit docks, the clause will become another small part of shipbuilding history—namely, a preparation by constituency members for a contingency that never arose. If we are to have the confidence that my hon. Friend has that the receiver will be able to sell off the yards, this little matter could well pass into oblivion as an attempt made by Members to protect the interests of their constituents, but big brother Government saying that they knew better. If it should not happen like that, at least we shall have tried to do our best for our constituents and met the contingency, should it arise, of the Government's hopes not being met.
I do not want to dwell too long on the points made by my hon. Friend about the help that the Government have given to Humberside. Who are we to complain about the assistance that has come in our direction and maintained a few jobs? However, it did not maintain the jobs at Thorn or at Humber St. Andrews, or Imperial Typewriters or the fishing industry.
In defence of the Government and of my hon. Friends, I say that the biggest run-down in employment will be in the fishing industry and in private employment. The Conservative Government negotiated our present weakness regarding fishing by giving Common Market countries the right to take fish right up to our beaches up to 1981. Any gains that later Labour Governments may obtain will result from their strength in negotiations, not from any position of strength that we have been left by the

Conservative Government. That is an aside.

Mr. Tom King: I understand and appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but we are working under a guillotine. The hon. Gentleman asked for the leave of the House, to which we did not object. One Opposition Member objecting would have debarred the hon. Gentleman from speaking again. We are to have the closure on an important debate at 6 o'clock. I understand and appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sincerity and concern for his constituents, but I ask him to bear that matter in mind.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has the right of reply, because he moved the amendment.

Mr. McNamara: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to be courteous to the House when I adopted the usual Committee procedure of asking for leave to speak again.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) will recall that I sat through the Committee stage and spoke on only three occasions, which took considerably less time than he had for the dribble that he has spoken on this Bill. I shall defend my constituents, my interests and my philosophy under the rules of the House as long as I like. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to tell me to curtail my speeches when I have sat through the dribble that he has spoken time and again, wasting the time of the House and forcing the guillotine upon us, because of his attitude and that of his stupid supporters. So just you belt up. I do not mean you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair does not wish to become involved in this discussion.

Mr. McNamara: I come to my final point. Having vented my spleen upon the Opposition, it is with regret that I tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I shall have to divide the House on this amendment. I do so with regret, because I always feel sorry when a Labour Government let down my constituents. This is contrary to what we promised them at the hustings, in our


manifesto and in personal undertakings. Having made a promise at the hustings and since, my hon. Friend and I feel bound by personal commitment to divide the House on this amendment.

Division No. 297.]
AYES
[5.22 p.m.


Ashton, Joe
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bidwell, Sydney
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Canavan, Dennis
Lee John
Rooker, J. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)
Sillars, James


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Litterick, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie
Swain, Thomas


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, John (Newton)
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mikardo, Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grocott, Bruce
Noble, Mike



Heffer, Eric S.
Ovenden, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Parry, Robert
Mr. James Johnson and


Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. John Prescott.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert






NOES


Abse, Leo
Deakins, Eric
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Allaun, Frank
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Archer, Peter
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville


Ashley, Jack
Dormand, J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkinson, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunn, James A.
John, Brynmor


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bates, Alf
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bean, R. E.
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Beith, A. J.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Judd, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ennals, David
Kaufman, Gerald


Boardman, H.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kelley, Richard


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans,loan (Aberdare)
Kerr, Russell


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lamborn, Harry


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Faulds, Andrew
Lamond, James


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Bradley, Tom
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Buchan, Norman
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Buchanan, Richard
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McCartney, Hugh


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Freud, Clement
MacKenzie, Gregor


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mackintosh, John P.


Cant, R. B.
George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Gilbert, Dr John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Carter, Ray
Golding, John
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gould, Bryan
Mallalleu, J. p. w.


Cartwright, John
Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David


Clemitson, Ivor
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cohen, Stanley
Grocott, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Concannon, J. D.
Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Corbett, Robin
Hatton, Frank
Mendelson, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Millan, Bruce


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Cronin, John
Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hooson, Emlyn
Moonman, Eric


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cryer, Bob
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Huckfield, Les
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Newens, Stanley


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 248.

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Sedgemore, Brian
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Owen, Dr David
Selby, Harry
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Padley, Walter
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Palmer, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pardoe, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Waker, Terry (Kingswood)


Park, George
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Watkins, David


Parker, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Watkinson, John


Pavitt, Laurie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Weetch, Ken


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Pendry, Tom
Small, William
Wellbeloved, James


Penhaligon, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Perry, Ernest
Snape, Peter
White, James (Pollok)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Spearing, Nigel
Whitehead, Phillip


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitlock, William


Price, C (Lewisham W)
Stallard, A. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Price, William (Rugby)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Radice, Giles
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stoddart, David
Williams, Sir Thomas


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stott, Roger
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Woodall, Alec


Roper, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rose, Paul B.
Tierney, Sydney
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ross, Stephen (Isle ot Wight)
Tomlinson, John



Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rowlands, Ted
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. James Tinn and


Sandelson, Neville
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 20

VESTING IN ACQUIRED COMPANY OF CERTAIN ASSETS OF PRIVATELY-OWNED COMPANIES IN SAME GROUP

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 21, line 29, after 'condition', insert:
'for the purposes of this section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can discuss Government Amendments Nos. 40 to 123 inclusive and No. 324.

Mr. Huckfield: Before discussing the amendments to Clause 20, which deals with the acquisition of appurtenant assets and liabilities of parent companies, I should like to say a word about the contingent liabilities of British Aerospace, to which I was hoping to refer on Clause 11, which, unfortunately, was not reached because of the timetable. I raise the matter now because the appurtenant asset liabilities may include contingent liabilities of the kind to which I am referring.
It is our understanding that the companies which will vest in British Aerospace have large contingent liabilities related to indemnities given to United Kingdom banks in respect of advance payments by export customers. We do not, in advance of the passage of the Bill, know the details of these liabilities, but they are likely to be substantial in total in relation to the financing limit of £250 million in the Bill. The limits

included in the Bill do not include provisions for these contingent liabilities crystallising.
In the unlikely event of one of these contingent liabilities crystallising, there will be an immediate increase in the indebtedness of British Aerospace, which will ultimately be met either by an increase in borrowing from the banks or by the provision of further Government finance. If such an increase exceeded the sums available to British Aerospace at that time under the existing financing limits, the Government would forthwith seek the authority of Parliament for an increase in the limits to meet the situation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the house 1 propose to read out the Government amendments in the form in which they have been printed. Should I be challenged at any point on any of these amendments, I shall then stop and propose the question.

Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I say for your convenience that the Opposition are prepared to accept Government amendments down to No. 324 without their being read out?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I must read out the numbers. I shall do so very quickly.

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 21, line 32, at end insert:
for the purposes of this section'.

No. 41, in page 21, line 45, leave out reference' and insert 'references'.

No. 42, in page 22, line 1, leave out 'a reference' and insert 'references'.

No. 43, in page 22, line 13, leave out 'For the purposes of' and insert 'In'.

No. 44, in page 22, line 15, leave out from beginning to '"associated' in line 23.

No. 45, in page 22, line 28, at end add:
'and "privately owned company" means a company whose securities do not vest, and which is not a subsidiary of a company whose securities vest, in either of the Corporations by virtue of this Part of this Act'.—[Mr. Les Huck field.]

Clause 21

CERTAIN LOANS FROM ASSOCIATED PERSONS TO BE TREATED AS SECURITIES

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 22, line 32, leave out
'a person associated with the acquired company'
and insert:
'an associated person'.

No. 47, in page 22, line 39, leave out 'associated with the company' and insert 'an associated person'.

No. 48, in page 22, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert:
',assuming the debtor not to be the subsidiary of any company, to be such as to require the issue to the lender by the debtor of securities within the meaning of section 19(5) above,'.

No. 49, in page 22, line 44, leave out '12' and insert '9'.

No. 50, in page 23, line 3, leave out from 'treated' to end of line 4 and insert
'as a security of the acquired company for the purposes of vesting and compensation'.

No. 51, in page 23, line 4, at end insert:
'(1A) Subject to subsection (3A) below, where a notice is served under subsection (1) above, no person—

(a) shall be entitled to exercise any right to repayment of the debt in question, or
(b) shall be subject to any obligation to repay it.'.

No. 52, in page 23, line 5, leave out from 'Where' to 'served' in line 6 and insert:
'such a notice is served, the person on whom it is'.

No. 53, in page 23, line 7, leave out 'two' and insert '3'.

No. 54, in page 23, line 16, leave out from 'partly' to 'they' in line 18 and insert:
'as a security of the acquired company for the purposes of vesting and compensation'.

No. 55, in page 23, line 20, at end insert:
'(3A) To the extent that, by reason of the revocation or amendment of a notice by virtue of subsection (3) above, a debt does not fall to be treated as a security of an acquired company, subsection (1A) above shall cease to apply to it on the date when the notice is revoked or amended.'.

No. 56, in page 23, line 38, leave out 'applies' and insert 'has effect'.

No. 57, in page 24, line 33, leave out subsection (8).

No. 58, in page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (9).—[Mr. Les Huck field.]

Clause 23

CONTROL OF DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 25, line 42, leave out '17th March 1975' and insert 'the safeguarding date'.

No. 60 in page 26, line 19, leave out '17th March 1975' and insert 'the safeguarding date'.

No. 61, in page 26, line 30, leave out '12' and insert '9'.

No. 62, in page 26, line 33, leave out 'and, subject to subsection (4) below, if' and insert '(3A) If'.

No. 63, in page 26, line 38, leave out subsection (4).

No. 64, in page 27, line 32, leave out '17th March 1975' and insert 'the safeguarding date'.—[Mr. Les Huck field.]

Clause 24

PERMITTED DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 28, line 12, after 'company', insert
'other than cumulative loan stock,'.

No. 66, in page 28, line 17, after 'loans insert—
'(aa) in the case of cumulative loan stock, payments of interest at the minimum rate required to prevent any interest being carried over for subsequent payment;'.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

Clause 26

POWER TO ACQUIRE SECURITIES OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL COMPANIES

Amendments made: No. 67, in page 31 line 31, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.

No. 68, in page 32, line 12, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State may also serve a notice of acquisition on a company, at any time before the relevant vesting date or within the period of three months beginning on that date, if it appears to him—

(a) that the whole of the equity share capital of the company is held by or on behalf of the Crown, and
(b) that it has as a subsidiary an acquired company falling within Part I of Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 to this Act.'.

No. 69, in page 32, line 14, leave out 'two' and insert '3'.

No. 70, in page 32, line 17, after '(1)', insert 'or (2A)'.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

Clause 27

REMOVAL OF COMPANY FROM COMPANIES TO BE ACQUIRED

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 33, line 19, leave out
'that one of the relevant conditions is fulfilled with respect'
and insert
,in relation'.

No. 72, in page 33, line 22, after 'company', insert—

'(a) that one of the conditions specified in subsection (2) below is fulfilled, or
(b) that both the conditions specified in subsection (2A) below are fulfilled,'.

No. 73, in page 33, leave out line 28 and insert—
'(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above are—'.

No. 74, in page 33, line 35, leave out 'or'.

No. 75, in page 33, line 37, leave out passes' and insert 'has passed'.

No. 76, in page 33, line 38, leave out is' and insert 'has been'.

No. 77, in page 33, line 38, leave out or' and insert 'and'.

No. 78, in page 33, line 39, leave out is' and insert 'has been'.

No. 79, in page 34, line 5, at end insert:
'(2A) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are—


(a) that the company is included among the companies falling within Part I of Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 to the Act, and
(b) that before the relevant vesting date the Secretary of State has served a notice of acquisition on a company (in this section referred to as "the acquired company") of which, at the date of service. it is the subsidiary'.

No. 80, in nage 34, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'company' and insert:

'(3) A notice served on a company under this section because it appeared to the Secretary of State that the conditions specified in subsection (2A) above were fulfilled shall cease to have effect if the notice of acquisition served on the acquired company is withdrawn or revoked.

(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, a'.

No. 81, in page 34, line 7, leave out one month' and insert 'three months'.

No. 82, in page 34, line 9, leave out from 'that' to end of line 12 and insert:
the circumstances at the date of service did not fall within subsection (2) or (2A) above'.

No. 83, in page 34, line 15, leave out from 'withdrawn,' to 'shall' in line 18 and insert:
any question whether the circumstances at the date of service of the Secretary of State's notice fell within subsection (2) or (2A) above'.

No. 84, in page 34, line 37, at end insert:
'(5A) Where—
(a) a notice under this section has been served on a company because it appeared to the Secretary of State that the conditions specified in subsection (2A) above were fulfilled in relation to it, and'.

No. 85, in page 34, line 39, leave out not withdrawn or revoked' and insert:
neither withdrawn nor revoked, and does not cease to have effect by virtue of subsection (3) above'.

No. 86, in page 35, line 2, at end add:
'(6A) In this Act "excluded company" means a company in relation to which this Act has effect as mentioned in subsection (6) above.'

No. 87, in page 35, line 9, leave out 'and Edinburgh' and insert 'Edinburgh and Belfast'.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

Clause 28

PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WORKS

Amendments made: No. 88, in page 35, line 19, leave out from 'it' to end of line 20.

No. 89, in page 35, leave out lines 38 and 39.

No. 90, in page 35, line 39, at end insert—
'(2A) Subject to subsection (5A) below, any transaction purporting to effect such a transfer or grant as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above shall be void.'.

No. 91, in page 36, line 16, leave out from 'parties' to end of line 25 and insert—
'(5A) If proceedings for the determination of such a question are not commenced within the period of 9 months beginning on the date of transfer or (if the company concerned has no date of transfer) the relevant vesting date, the transaction shall be deemed always to have been valid (but without prejudice to the effect of any agreement under subsection (5) above.'

No. 92, in page 36, line 29, leave out '12' and insert '9'.—[Mr. Les Huck field.]

Clause 29

RECOVERY OF ASSETS TRANSFERRED AWAY

Amendments made: No. 93, in page 37, line 26, leave out 'in the public interest' and insert
'necessary, for the purpose of enabling one of the Corporations fully to carry out its functions under this Act,'.

No. 94, in page 37, line 32, leave out 'a notice of acquisition'.

No. 95, in page 37, line 33, at end add
'a notice (in this Act referred to as a "Schedule 4 notice") stating that Schedule 4 below applies to rights or property specified in the notice'.

No. 96, in page 37, line 34, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 97, in page 37, line 36, leave out subsection (3).

No. 98, in page 38, line 27, leave out 'invention or design' and insert 'or property'.

No. 99, in page 38, line 37, leave out from 'such' to 'above' in line 38 and insert
'property or rights as are specified in subsection (1)(a)(i) or (ii)'.

No. 100, in page 38, line 42, leave out 'rights referred to in paragraph (c) above' and insert
'property or rights'.

No. 101, in page 38, line 44, leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 45.

No. 102, in page 39, line 1, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert
'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 103, in page 39, line 2, leave out 'two' and insert '3'.

No. 104, in page 39, line 5, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert
'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 105, in page 39, line 11, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert
'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 106, in page 39, line 17, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert
'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 107, in page 39, line 19, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert
'Schedule 4 notice'.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

Clause 30

DISSIPATION OF ASSETS BY TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING HOLDERS OF SECURITIES, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 108, in page 39, line 28, leave out '17th March 1975' and insert
'the safeguarding date'.

No. 109, in page 39, line 37, leave out '17th March 1975' and insert
'the safeguarding date'.

No. 110, in page 41, line 7, leave out '12' and insert '9'.

No. 111, in page 41, line 32, leave out
'subject to subsection (8) below,'.

No. 112, in page 41, line 39, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

Clause 31

ONEROUS TRANSACTIONS: DISCLAIMER AND RECOVERY OF LOSSES

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 42, line 27, leave out '18th March 1975' and insert
'the day after the safeguarding date'.

No. 114, in page 42, line 45, leave out '12' and insert '9'.

No. 115, in page 43, line 2, leave out '18th March 1975' and insert
'the day after the safeguarding date'.

No. 116, in page 43, line 20, leave out from 'lease' to 'is' in line 21 and insert—
'(5A) In this Act a notice under subsection (5) above'.

No. 117, in page 44, line 13, leave out from 'met' to end of line 21.—[Mr. Les Huck field.]

Clause 32

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 31

Amendments made: No. 118, in page 44, line 34, leave out from 'above', to 'requires' in line 35 and insert
'neither—

(a) the following enactments, namely—

(i) section 2(3) of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, and
(ii) section 2(3) of the Frustrated Contracts Act (Northern Ireland) 1947 (each of which'.

No. 119, in page 44, line 37, leave out 'shall not' and insert
'nor
(b) any rule of the common law of Scotland corresponding to those enactments, shall'.

No. 120, in page 44, line 44, leave out
'under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943'
and insert
'as a result of its frustration'.

No. 121, in page 45, line 13, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

Clause 33

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO DISSIPATION OF ASSETS

Amendment made: No. 122, in page 45, line 29, leave out
'notice of acquisition under section 29 above'
and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

Clause 37

BASE VALUE OF SECURITIES OF A LISTED CLASS

Amendments made: No. 123, in page 49, line 25, leave out 'this' and insert 'that'.

No. 324, in page 50, leave out lines 32 to 34.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

Mr, Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 290, in page 50, line 32, after 'means' insert:
'whichever of the days hereinafter specified the stockholders' representative may elect namely either the nearest Wednesday to the

15th day of each of the months in the period of 12 months beginning with March 1973 or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Amendment No. 293, in Clause 38, page 51, line 8, leave out from 'the' to end of line 14 and insert:
'fair price to pay for such securities taking into account all the circumstances of the acquired company, the base value of whose securities fall to be determined, including the future prospects and the trading record of that company and its net assets'.

Mr. Taylor: In Committee I made frequent attempts to improve the Bill, but whenever I did so the Minister said "We connot do that, because it breaks the precedents from the Gas Act". I became almost obsessed with the Gas Act and, therefore, studied it to see the many excellent things in it which the Minister might not have noticed and which we might be able to incorporate in the Bill.
The clause defines the base value of listed securities for compensation purposes as being determined by reference to the average quoted values on each Wednesday in the six months to Wednesday 27th February 1974. Although some concern was expressed on both sides about whether the compensation was too much or too little, everyone seemed to agree that that was a very artificial and short period for the purpose.
The object of my amendment is to provide the stockholders' representative with an election between two periods for valuation purposes, which include one longer period in place of the single six-month period specified in the Bill. Is the selection of only one period unique, or has it been done before? As far as I can see, it is almost exceptional in nationalisation measures. I can find it in no other.
There is a choice of two periods in the Transport Act 1947, the Electricity Act 1947, even in the Gas Act 1948, in the Iron and Steel Act 1949, the Iron and Steel Act 1967—a terrible Act—and the Ports Act 1969, which was even worse. In that dreadful measure, the Iron and Steel Act 1967, and in the Ports Act, the choices were between six months, in the case of steel five years, and in the case of ports three years. It has been recognised in all nationalisation Bills that the only way to try to be fair in all the circumstances is to have a choice between a short period and a


longer period. Six months is a very artificial period and can be very unfair.
Apart from that, we must see whether the six months' period is entirely normal and fair. I do not think that it can be, because the six months to the end of February 1974 were most unusual. They were unfair and abnormal months to choose for stock valuation purposes. There were first, the Middle East War; secondly, the oil crisis; thirdly, the miners' strike; fourthly, the three-day working week; fifthly, the run-up to the General Election; and, sixthly, price and dividend control throughout the period.
I appreciate that, as the Minister of State has admitted many times, under a Labour Government, disasters come frequently. It could be alleged that a disaster period was a normal period for valuation purposes, but I think even the hon. Gentleman will agree that to pick those six months when we had all those dreadful and unusual things is not fair.
In addition, no matter what formula is arrived at, if the period is as short as six months it may be fair to some and very unfair to others. My suggestion, which is a compromise based on all the precedents of other nationalisation measures, will be fairer because it gives a choice. It cannot be as fair as Amendment No. 293, which refers to a "fair price". That is the right way, but the Minister has said time and again that he wants to do it on the basis of stock market valuations. If he is doing that, it is better to pick a long period than a short period.
I hope that as a gesture of good will the hon. Gentleman will accept my reasonable amendment. If he is not entirely convinced, I ask him to answer two brief questions. First, why do all the other nationalisation measures adopt what I propose while his is different? Secondly, does he honestly think that it is fair to pick a period when there were events such as the Middle East War, the oil crisis, the miners' strike, the three-day working week, the run-up to the General Election and price and dividend control?
We are moving into a time of cumulative disasters because of Socialist Government. In Scotland there are 165,000 unemployed, and projects such as the Hunterston steel project are not

proceeding. Terrible things are happening all the time. But we are here talking about a period just after the golden age of Conservative Government, when things were going well. Therefore, to pick that six-month period is very unfair and unreasonable.
I hope that the Minister will accept my amendment. The only way to be fair to a diversity of companies whose circumstances were different is to give a choice of periods which will ensure that what may be fair for one can also be fair to others.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: When the hon. Gentleman asks for a compromise, I am reminded of the late Kingsley Martin's demand for a fair balance between partiality and impartiality. The hon. Gentleman's request for the Government to make a concession to the House is a perfectly understandable request that we make a concession to him. I should like to explain why we cannot do so, although I think that the hon. Gentleman will know some of the reasons, because Amendment No. 290 is identical to an amendment moved and rejected in Committee.
The amendment seeks to offer the stockholders' representative for each company a choice of reference period for the valuation of securities. The hon. Gentleman proposes, in effect, an extension backwards of the existing reference from six months to a year. From the middle of 1972 to early 1975 the stock market generally was in decline. The Financial Times ordinary share index fell from an all-time peak of over 500 in mid-1972 to a low of less than 150 in January 1975. I think everyone would accept that both those extremes represented exceptional circumstances. Both were an exaggeration of the true market situation.
Between those two extremes the Financial Times index averaged about 370, almost identical to the average of the index throughout the reference period prescribed in the Bill. Therefore, I think that it would be accepted by most fair-minded people—from whom I exclude the hon. Gentleman only in this context, and not generally—that the present reference period could not be fairer than it is. It accurately reflects the mid-point of the market over the past three to four


years and avoids the period of excessive caution which gave rise to the abnormal low at the start of 1975. At the same time, it does not reflect the high degree of speculation during the golden period of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, which gave rise to the mid-1972 high.
The hon. Gentleman seems to take the view that this fair, mid-point position is not good enough. He believes that shareholders are entitled to make a profit from the historical accident that stock market levels happened to be higher in the early part of 1973 than in the early part of 1974. I cannot accept that. The amendment would inevitably give more to the shareholders at the expense of taxpayers. That cannot be fair.
The fairness of the six months to February 1974, during the golden period of Conservative Government which the hon Gentleman recollects—indeed, when it reached its apotheosis—is that it was the latest period in which stock market prices were unaffected by the prospect of nationalisation. Nobody knew, not even the then Prime Minister, that we should have a General Election on 28th February. Until almost the time when it was announced, nobody could have anticipated it. Pessimists as we are, there were not all that many of us who expected that if such an election came it would result in the return of a Labour Government, pledged to nationalisation of these industries. I recognise that the result of the election was a matter of some concern to the hon. Gentleman although he did unusually well—but he will understand that I hope he will not continue to do so well in the future.
When we discussed the dividend controls in the safeguarding provisions in Committee, hon. Members opposite made great play of what they considered to be the injustice of a remote basis financial year for determining the permitted level of dividends. They claimed that it was inappropriate to control current dividend levels by reference to a past year. But in Amendment No. 290 the Opposition are proposing to extend the reference period for compensation further back in time. If they really believed that for dividends the past was of no relevance, it is hard to accept that in terms of a valuation the past suddenly becomes the most important factor. One is drawn to

the conclusion that hon. Members opposite are concerned only with obtaining the maximum possible for shareholders, with no regard to the consistency of their arguments.
The existing reference period offers a fair basis of valuation for the securities of the vesting companies. The alternative proposed in the amendment would destroy this fairness by giving an un-covenanted benefit to shareholders at the expense of the taxpayers. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Amendment No. 290 represents the partisan case put by the Opposition throughout the passage of the Bill on behalf of the shareholders, irrespective of the cost to the taxpayer. The Opposition are suggesting that the existing terms of the Bill are less than fair. We utterly reject that.
The compensation terms in the Bill are for unquoted securities to be valued as if they had been quoted on the Stock Exchange during the six months up to the end of February 1974. The Stock Exchange is well recognised as an impartial and objective judge of the value of securities. Techniques for imputing Stock Exchange valuations to unquoted securities are tried and tested—in the City of London as well as within Government. It is sheer hypocrisy for Opposition to claim otherwise. Where it suits their case they are quite prepared to make use of the value of the stock market indices, either to criticise the present Government or to demonstrate their own achievements. It is therefore right to take into account the condition of the stock market in valuing shares for compensation purposes.
But it now suits them and those whose interests they represent to say that a Stock Exchange basis is not good enough. Instead, they are seeking to set the valuation at what they are pleased to call a fair price. They go on to say that that "fair price" should take account of the trading record and future prospects of the company and its net assets. As everyone knows, without a separate independent assets valuation, which is a very lengthy process, the net assets of a company as recorded in its books reflects only the particular accounting conventions of the company. There is nothing objective


about that. The amendment sets no yardstick whatsoever for taking into account past records and future prospects. What the Opposition are asking the House to approve is a compensation package which is open-ended and says little more than "compensation shall be as much as the shareholders can get".
I therefore urge the House to reject Amendment 293 for what it is, a shallow attempt to benefit shareholders at the expense of the community as a whole.

Mr. Tom King: In his attack on the amendment, the Minister particularly criticised its wording. But it includes a direct extract from the statement of the previous Secretary of State for Industry when he established the basis of the price that the Government paid for the Court Line shares. It is unusual that the Minister should choose to attack that wording as if it was a totally unrealistic basis on which to proceed. We tabled the amendment on that basis with the words of the Secretary of State in mind. We assumed that if that was the correct basis on which the Government chose to work, it would be acceptable. It is wrong that the Minister should accuse us of inconsistency, because the Secretary of State said that legislation would provide for fair compensation. We wonder what the Government mean by "fair compensation".
We have been through the problem before. We are talking about shareholders, and the Minister made an interesting Freudian slip during our discussions on the Drypool Group when he said that he was not interested in the speculator element in Kingston upon Hull. In other words, in his mind "shareholder" means "speculator".
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that involved in this industry are about 1,000 pension funds? That is the best estimate that can be made. There is also about £200,000 of private money invested by individuals with very small savings. Their interests and their voices should be represented and heard in the House.
The Minister said that the stock market price was a fair way to value the worth of a company, but that is not true. Stock market listed prices are prices for small parcels of shares in daily circulation on the stock market. Why did he support the Felix-

stowe Docks Bill when the price quoted was 90p and the British Transport Docks Board recognised that to acquire control it would have to pay £1·50p each for the shares? That is an example of the total inconsistency of the Government.
In Committee the Minister said:
We are paying what the shares are worth to the sellers while they are in the hands of the sellers."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9th March 1976; c. 1655.]
But he failed to mention that none of these people is a voluntary seller. They are being compulsorily released of their shares and they are certainly entitled to a normal commercial price. Normally, in any acquisition of control of an undertaking, people will pay up to one-third more for their shares. Inflation has increased by about one-third since that time.
I shall illustrate my case by explaining the position of two particular companies. Vosper Thornycroft, which is likely to get about £4 million in compensation, will probably make a profit of about £4 million this year, and it has assets of just under £20 million. No hon. Member can pretend that the proposed compensation comes within any definition of fairness. Yarrow will receive between £4 and £5 million in compensation, but its profits this year will be in excess of £7 million and its assets are worth £10 million.
We are not fighting this case on behalf of a few speculators. We are fighting for fair compensation for the 1,000 pension funds and other investors involved. We regard the Government's present proposals as being quite outrageous and ridiculous. Therefore, we shall press our second amendment to a Division.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38

BASE VALUE OF OTHER SECURITIES

Amendments made: No. 124, in page 51, line 4, leave out from 'but' to 'shall' in line 5 and insert:
'were not listed in the Stock Exchange Daily Official List on each of those days'.

No. 125, in page 51, line 6, leave out 'agreed' and insert 'determined by agreement'.— [Mr. Les Huck field.]

Amendment proposed: No. 293, in page 51, line 8, leave out from 'the' to end of line 14 and insert:
'fair price to pay for such securities taking into account all the circumstances of the acquired company, the base value of whose securities fall to be determined, including the

Division No. 298.]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lawrence, Ivan


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawson, Nigel


Alison, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
Le Marchant, Spencer


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Forman, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Arnold, Tom
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lloyd, Ian


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fox, Marcus
Loveridge, John


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Luce, Richard


Baker, Kenneth
Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Banks, Robert
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McCusker, H.


Bell, Ronald
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macfarlane, Neil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
MacGregor, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Biffen, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Madel, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Body, Richard
Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John
Maude, Angus


Bottomley, Peter
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Bowden, A, (Brighton, Kemplown)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mawby, Ray


Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gray, Hamish
Mayhew, Patrick


Brittan, Leon
Griffiths, Eldon
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Brolherton, Michael
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Buck, Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, James


Budgen, Nick
Hannam, John
Monro, Hector


Bulmer, Esmond
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Burden, F. A.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Carlisle, Mark
Havers, Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Carson, John
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Churchill, W. S.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
Nelson, Anthony


Cockcroft, John
Hordern, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Newtnn, Tony


Cope,John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom


Cordle, John H.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nott, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Onslow, Cranley


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Costain, A. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Osborn, John


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow West)


Critchley, Julian
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Crouch, David
James, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Crowder, F. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Parkinson, Cecil


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pink, R. Bonner


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Drayson, Burnaby
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt Hon James


Dunlop, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Durant, Tony
Kershaw, Anthony
Ralson, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James
Rathbone, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Elliott, Sir William
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Emery, Peter
Kirk, Sir Peter
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fairgrieve, Russell
Knox, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Farr, John
Lament, Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

future prospects and the trading record of that company and its net assets'.—[Mr. Tom King.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 329.

Ross, William (Londonderry)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Viggers, Peter


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Sproat, Iain
Wakenham, John


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stainton, Keith
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Sainsbury, Tim
Stanley, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wall, Patrick


Scott, Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walters, Dennis


Scott-Hopkins, James
Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Colin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Tebbit, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Silvester, Fred
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Sims, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Sinclair, Sir George
Townsend, Cyril D.
Younger, Hon George


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trotter, Neville



Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Tugendhat, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Jim Lester and


Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mr. Carol Mather.


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank


Allaun, Frank
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hooson, Emlyn


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric
Horam, John


Archer, Peter
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Armstrong, Ernest
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Ashley, Jack
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Ashton, Joe
Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Les


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bates, Alt
Dunn, James A.
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Bean, R. E.
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Beith, A. J.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Eadie, Alex
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Edge, Geoff
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bishop, E. S.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Janner, Greville


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Boardman, H.
English, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ennals, David
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
John, Brynmor


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, John (Newton)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Judd, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Kaufman, Gerald


Buchanan, Richard
Flannery, Martin
Kelley, Richard


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Kerr, Russell


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Campbell, Ian
Ford, Ben
Lambie, David


Canavan, Dennis
Forrester, John
Lamborn, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamond, James


Carmichael, Neil
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Carter, Ray
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Freud, Clement
Lee, John


Cartwright, John
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Clemitson, Ivor
George, Bruce
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Gilbert, Dr John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David
Liplon, Marcus


Coleman, Donald
Golding, John
Litterick, Tom


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Gould, Bryan
Lomas, Kenneth


Concannon, J. D.
Gourlay, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Graham, Ted
Luard, Evan


Corbett, Robin
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Crawford, Douglas
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Crawshaw, Richard
Grocott, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh


Cronin, John
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
MacCormick, Iain


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hardy, Peter
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cryer, Bob
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hatton, Frank
MacKenzie, Gregor


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Hayman, Mrs [...]
Mackintosh, John P.


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Maclennan, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Henderson, Douglas
McNamara, Kevin

Madden, Max
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Magee, Bryan
Radice, Giles
Thompson, George


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mahon, Simon
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normantun)
Tierney, Sydney


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tinn, James


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomlinson, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tomney, Frank


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Torney, Tom


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tuck, Raphael


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.


Meacher, Michael
Rooker, J. W.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roper, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mendelson, John
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Night)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Millan, Bruce
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Illord N)
Sandelson, Neville
Waker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Michael


Moonman, Eric
Selby, Harry
Watkins, David


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Watkinson, John


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Watt, Hamish


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Weetch, Ken


Moyle, Roland
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Weitzman, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wellbeloved, James


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Welsh, Andrew


Newens, Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Noble, Mike
Sillars, James
White, James (Pollok)


Oakes, Gordon
Silverman, Julius
Whitehead, Phillip


Ogden, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


O'Halloran, Michael
Small, William
Wigley, Dafydd


Orbach, Maurice
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Ovenden, John
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Owen, Dr David
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Padley, Walter
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Sir Thomas


Palmer, Arthur
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Pardoe, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Park, George
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Parker, John
Stoddart, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Parry, Robert
Stott, Roger
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pavitt, Laurie
Strang, Gavin
Woodall, Alec


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Woof, Robert


Pendry, Tom
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Penhaligon, David
Swain, Thomas
Young, David (Bolton E)


Perry, Ernest
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)



Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr, Joseph Harper and


Prescott, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Mr, James Hamilton.


Price, C (Lewisham W)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [20th July] and the Resolution [27th July], to put forthwith Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded.

Amendments made: No. 126, in page 51, line 11, leave out from "days" to end of line 14 and insert—

"(1A) Subsections (2), (3), (4) and (6) of section 37 above shall have effect in relation to securities to which subsection (1) above applies as they have effect in relation to securities to which subsection (1) of that section applies.

(1B) The arbitration tribunal, in determining the base value that any securities would have had if they had been listed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, shall have regard to all relevant factors.".

No. 127, in page 51, line 18, after "class", insert—
issued before the first of the relevant days".

No. 128, in page 51, line 21, at end insert—
(2A) For the purposes of determining in accordance with subsection (1) above the base value of securities of any company, it shall be assumed that the assets of that company were not subject to any charge on any of the relevant days.".

No. 129, in page 51, line 22, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

No. 130, in page 52, line 16, leave out
, within the meaning of section 154 of the Companies Act 1948,".

No. 131, in page 52, line 25, leave out
wholly or partly appurtenant to an undertaking".

No. 132, in page 52, line 28, leave out "or (4)".

No. 133, in page 52, line 31, leave out
were wholly or partly appurtenant to the undertaking in question and".

No. 134, in page 52, line 33, at end add
and as would have satisfied a vesting condition for the purposes of the said section 20".

No. 135, in page 53, line 15, at end insert—
(8A) Subject to subsection (8B) below, where securities of a new class have been issued after the last of the relevant days, the base value of the securities of that class for the purpose of section 35 above shall be deemed to be the price at which they were issued or, if they were issued free, shall be deemed to be nil; and

(a) subsections (2) and (3) of section 37 above shall have effect in relation to any fresh issue or conversion of securities of the new class, and
(b) subsections (4) to (6) of that section shall have effect for the purposes of this subsection.
(8B) Where—

(a) apart from this subsection the base value of securities would fall to be ascertained under subsection (8A) above, and
(b) they were issued for a consideration consisting in whole or in part of the transfer to the company by which they were issued (in this subsection referred to as 'the transferee') of the whole or any part of an undertaking of another company (in this subsection referred to as 'the transferor') which at the date of that transfer was a member of the same group of companies as the transferee,
the base value shall instead be determined in accordance with subsection (1) above, on the assumptions—

(i) that the securities were in existence on each of the relevant days; and
(ii) that on each of the relevant days the undertaking of the transferee included the whole or, as the case may require, the part of the undertaking carried on on that day by the transferor which then corresponded to the undertaking or part thereof transferred to the transferee by way of consideration for the issue of the securities; and
(iii) that, in any case where the transfer of the undertaking or part thereof formed only part of the consideration for the issue of the securities, the remainder of that consideration was an asset of the transferee on each of the relevant days.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 39

THE APPROPRIATE DEDUCTION

Amendments made: No. 136, in Clause 39, in page 53, line 19, leave out from 'section' to 'a' in line 20.

No. 137, in page 53, line 24, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.

No. 138, in page 53, line 24, at end insert—

'(a) if any of the conditions specified in subsection (2) below is fulfilled, and

(b) in a case to which subsection (3A) below applies'.

No. 139, in page 53, line 29, leave out 'before 18th March 1975' and insert:
'not later than the safeguarding date'.

No. 140, in page 53, line 35, at end insert—
'(aa) that a company has, in pursuance of an authority or recommendation contained in a resolution of the directors of the company passed after 27th February 1974 and not later than the safeguarding date, and at a date on which it was a wholly owned subsidiary of an acquired company, made payments of interest of such a nature and amount that, on the relevant hypothesis, all persons who were directors of the company at the time when the resolution was passed would he liable to make a payment to the relevant Corporation under section 23(2) above;'.

No. 141, in page 53, line 43, leave out 'made or'.

No. 142, in page 54, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—
(2A) The fulfilment with respect to a wholly owned subsidiary of an acquired company of a condition specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (2) above shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) above as its fulfilment'.

No. 143, in page 54, line 8, leave out 'in sections 23, 24 and 30 above to 17th March 1975'
and insert:
'to the safeguarding date in section 23 or 30 above'.

No. 144, in page 54, line 11, leave out from 'the' to 'to' in line 12, and insert:
'references to 29th October 1974 in section 24(1)(b) and (2) above there were substituted references'.

No. 145, in page 54, line 15, leave out' 18th March 1975' and insert:
'the day after the safeguarding date'.

No. 146, in page 54, line 20, leave out from 'reference' to 'there' in line 21, and insert:
'to the date of transfer in section 23, 30 or 31 above'.

No. 147, in page 54, line 22, leave out '18th March 1975' and insert:
'the day after the safeguarding date'.

No. 148, in page 54, line 22, at end insert—
'(3A) This subsection applies where, within the period beginning on 28th February 1974 and ending—

(a) on the date of service of a notice under section 21(1) above, or


(b) 9 months after the date of transfer,
whichever is the earlier, there has been repayment of the whole or any part of the principal of a debt the right to repayment of which, had the debt continued in existence, would, on the service of a notice under the said section 21(1), have been treated as mentioned in subsection (5)(a) of that section.'.

No. 149, in page 54, line 29, leave out 'in subsection (2)(a)' and insert:
'specified in subsection (2)(a) or (aa)'.

No. 150, in page 54, line 34, after 'condition', insert 'specified'.

No. 151, in page 54, line 40, after 'condition', insert 'specified'.

No. 152, in page 54, line 45, at end add:
'and
(d) in a case to which subsection (3A) above applies, the net loss to the Corporation resulting from the repayment in question.'.

No. 153, in page 55, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 2 and insert:
(5) The question—

(a) whether any, and if so which, of the conditions specified in subsection (2) above is fulfilled, or
(b) whether, in any case, subsection (3A) above applies,
and any question as to

(i) the amount of the appropriate deduction to be made in respect of any securities, or
(ii) any amount to be included in such a deduction by virtue of subsection (4) above.'—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 41

STOCKHOLDERS' REPRESENTATIVES

Amendment made: No. 155, in page 57, line 9, leave out 'officers of that company or' and insert:
'employees of that company or of any such'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 43

SCOTTISH PROCEEDINGS

Amendment made: No. 156, in Clause 43, page 59, line 14, leave out from 'and' to second 'in' in line 16 and insert:
'either—

(a) the company's principal United Kingdom place of business, or
(b) the place of the company's principal United Kingdom works,
is situated'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 44

STAFF AND EXPENSES OF ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

Amendments made: No. 157, in page 59, line 35, leave out 'officers' and insert 'staff'.

No. 158, in page 59, line 42, leave out 'any officer' and insert 'staff'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 47

PROVISIONS AS TO PENSION RIGHTS

Amendments made: No. 159, in page 62, leave out lines 1 to 28 and insert:
'(4) Subject to subsection (4B) below, the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, make, in relation to any pension scheme not made under subsection (1) above (in this section referred to as an "existing scheme") which provides for pensions to or in respect of persons who are or have been employed by a company which becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of either Corporation such provision as appears to him to be expedient in consequence of its having become such a subsidiary.
(4A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, regulations under that subsection may make provision—

(a) for the complete or partial amalgamation of existing schemes either with other such schemes or with schemes established under subsection (1) above;
(b) for amending, repealing or revoking any existing schemes, any enactment relating to an existing scheme or to a scheme resulting from an amalgamation under paragraph (a) above or any trust deed, rules or other instrument made for the purposes of an existing scheme or of a scheme resulting from such an amalgamation;
(c) for the complete or partial transfer of liabilities and obligations under existing schemes or for reducing or extinguishing such liabilities or obligations;
(d) for the complete or partial transfer, or the winding-up, of any pension fund held for the purposes of an existing scheme; and
(e) for supplemental or consequential matters'.

No. 160, in page 62, line 29, leave out 'but nothing in this subsection' and insert:
'(4B) Nothing in subsection (4) or (4A) above'.

No. 161, in page 62, line 33, leave out from 'to' to 'under' in line 38 and insert:
'subsection (5A) below, regulations'.

No. 162, in page 62, line 42, at end insert:
'(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) above may make exceptional provisions to meet cases in which, in connection with any provision made by this Act or in anticipation of the making of any such provision, pension rights have been created otherwise than in the ordinary course'.

No. 163, in page 63, line 2, leave out from 'regulations' to 'shall' in line 4 and insert:
'(6A) Any question whether or not the result referred to in subsection (5) above has been secured by regulations under subsection (4) above, including any question whether it has been secured by amending regulations under that subsection made in pursuance of subsection (6) above,'.

No. 164, in page 63, line 17, after 'above', insert:
'other than a provision expressed to be made to meet a case such as is mentioned in subsection (5A) above'.

No. 165, in page 63, line 18, leave out 'either' and insert 'that'.

No. 166, in page 63, line 20, leave out from 'scheme' to 'that' in line 21.

No. 167, in page 63, line 44, leave out subsection (10).

No. 168, in page 64, line 3, leave out subsection (11).—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 48

COMPENSATION FOR Loss OF EMPLOYMENT, EMOLUMENTS OR PENSION RIGHTS

Amendments made: No. 169, in page 64, line 34, leave out 'officers' and insert 'employees'.

No. 170, in page 65, line 21, leave out from 'practice' to end of line 23.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 49

FURNISHING OF INFORMATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 171, in Clause 49, in page 66, line 10, leave out 'and'.

No. 172, in page 66, line 11, leave out from 'been' to 'any' in line 13 and insert
'employed by a company falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above, and
(e) any person who is or has been a director or auditor of'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 51

LIABILITY OF CORPORATIONS ETC.

Amendments made: No. 173, in page 68, line 13, leave out from 'person' to 'shall' in line 15 and insert
'to whom this subsection applies and who is liable in respect of any debt or liability of the company under a contract of guarantee or indemnity made before the company became such a subsidiary'.

No. 325, in page 68, line 15 at end add—
'(3) The persons to whom subsection (3) above applies are persons who, immediately before the company became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporation—

(a) were associated persons, or
(b) controlled some other company or body corporate which controlled it.'

No. 175, in page 68, line 20, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) Subject to subsection (5A) below, no person shall, in respect of a loan,—

(a) become entitled to exercise any right, or
(b) become subject to any obligation, on the ground—

(i) of the passing of this Act, or
(ii) of anything done by virtue of this Act, or
(iii) of anything done following the passing of this Act in relation to an acquired company or a wholly owned subsidiary of such a company, or
(iv) of anything necessarily resulting from the passing of this Act or from anything done as mentioned in paragraph (ii) or (iii) above.'.

No. 176, in page 68, line 23, at end insert—
'(5A) Subsection (5) above shall not have effect in relation to any right vested in a person to whom subsection (3) above applies in respect of a loan made after the last of the relevant days to an acquired company or a wholly owned subsidiary of such a company.'.

No. 177, in page 68, line 24, leave out subsections (6) to (8).—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Clause 54

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 326, in page 70, line 20, at end insert—
'"associated person", in relation to a company or its wholly owned subsidiary means—

(a) a person who controls the company, or
(b) a body corporate controlled by a person who also controls the company.'

No. 179, in page 70, line 29, leave out 'of a company'.

No. 180, in page 70, line 31, at end add:
'or, in the case of a company incorporated in Northern Ireland, section 148(5) of the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960;

No. 181, in page 70, line 32, leave out from second 'company' to end of line 34 and insert:
'has the meaning assigned to it by section 27(6A) above;'.

No. 182, in page 70, line 38, at end insert:
'"industrial or intellectual property" includes, without prejudice to its generality, patents, designs, trade marks, know-how and copy-rights;'

No. 183, in page 71, line 5, at end insert:
'"know-how" means any industrial information and techniques likely to assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or materials or the repair of goods;'.

No. 184, in page 71, line 5, at end insert:
'"lease" includes an agreement for a lease and any tenancy agreement,'.

No. 185, in page 71, line 8, at end insert:
mortgage" in relation to Scotland, means a heritable security within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970;'.

No. 186, in page 71, line 8, at end insert:
'"notice of acquisition" has the meaning assigned to it by section 26(1) above;'.

No. 187, in page 71, line 8, at end insert:
'"notice of disclaimer" has the meaning assigned to it by section 31(5A) above;'.

No. 188, in page 71, leave out lines 9 to 12.

No. 189, in page 71, line 12, at end insert:
'"operate", in relation to any works, means to be actively engaged, whether alone or with others, in the management of the works, but a person shall not be deemed to operate works by reason only that he exercises an indirect control of their management by means of the holding of shares in the operating company or otherwise;'.

No. 190, in page 71, line 12, at end insert:
pension", in relation to any person, means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any

kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of him, and includes a gratuity so payable and a return of contributions or insurance premiums to a pension fund with or without interest or any other addition;
pension rights" includes all forms of right to or eligibility for, the present or future payment of a pension to or in respect of a person, and any expectation of the accruer of a pension to or in respect of a person under any customary practice, and also includes a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension;
pension scheme" includes any form of arrangements for the payment of pensions, whether subsisting by virtue of an Act, trust, contract or otherwise, and also includes any customary practice under which pensions are paid;'.

No. 327, in page 71, line 21, at end insert:
'"the relevant clays" means 27th December 1973 and every Wednesday, other than 26th December 1973, in the period of six months beginning on 1st September 1973;'.

No. 191, in page 71, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of page 72, line 2.

No. 192, in page 72, line 2, at end insert—
'"safeguarding date" means—

(a) in relation to a company on which the Secretary of State serves a notice of acquisition, the date of service of the notice, and
(b) in relation to any other company, 17th March 1975;'.

No. 193, in page 72, line 2, at end insert—
'"Schedule 4 notice" has the meaning assigned to it by section 29(1) above;'.

No. 194, in page 72, line 20, at end add—
voting power" does not include voting rights which arise only in limited circumstances;'.

No. 195, in page 72, line 23, after '1948', insert:
'and section 144 of the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960'.

No. 196, in page 72, line 38, at end insert—
'(1A) For the purposes of this Act, in relation to land in England, Wales or Northern Ireland),—

(a) "own" includes hold or lease;
(b) "rights of ownership" means an estate in fee simple or a lease; and
(c) property owned by a member of a partnership and held by him for the purposes of the partnership shall be deemed to be owned by each of the members of the partnership.


(1B) For the purposes of this Act, in relation to land in Scotland,—

(a) "own" includes hold on lease;
(b) "right of ownership" means—

(i) if the land is feudal property, the estate or interest of the proprietor of dominium mile, or
(ii) if the land is not feudal property, the estate or interest of the owner, or
(iii) a lease; and
(c) property owned by a member of a partnership and held by him for the purposes of the partnership shall be deemed to be owned by the firm'.

No. 328, in page 73, line 30, at end insert—
'(5A) For the purposes of this Act a person controls a company or other body coporate if he is entitled to exercise, or to control the exercise, of at least one third of the voting power at any general meeting of that body corporate.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that earlier today reference was made by my hon. Friends on the Government side about the activities of representatives of a public relations firm called International News Services, which has been particularly active in trying to impress a particular point of view over the legislation that we are now discussing.
Immediately before the last Division, on coming into the Chamber I observed a representative of that firm standing in the Members' Lobby in conversation with a Member of Parliament. I believe that the Members' Lobby is reserved for the use of Members of Parliament and accredited Lobby correspondents and that the gentleman concerned, as he is not an accredited Lobby correspondent, has no business to stay in the Members' Lobby in conversation. I therefore ask whether action can be taken to ensure that this person is not allowed to stay in the Members' Lobby, as this obviously reflects on matters which were brought to the attention of the House earlier.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Chair will look into the matter.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) made a mistake, as you will have observed, when he said that

accredited Lobby correspondents are allowed in. In fact, no one but a Member is allowed to be in the Members' Lobby. Even accredited Lobby correspondents are not allowed there, much as we admire and respect them. If it is good enough for them to have to withdraw, I certainly think—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point has been made.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I understand you to say that the activities of this person are to be investigated? This sort of activity could become a very serious intrusion into the very nature of this Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be looked into at once.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a serious matter, and I appeal to you to make a declaration from the Chair that the Members' Lobby is for Members of Parliament only and not for representatives of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, because in essence that is what they are.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The present incumbent of the Chair is investigating the matter. It will be a matter for Mr. Speaker's ruling.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect it is not, because my hon. Friend is quite right. I ask you to confirm that it is laid down as a rule of the House that during a Division no Strangers may be allowed in the Members' Lobby. I want this to be clear. Even Library staff and officials of the House are told that they cannot stand there and must leave. Indeed it happened to me, because a correspondent was speaking to me and he was moved out of the Members' Lobby—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The circumstances are being investigated and the matter will be reported to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you, please, to answer my point of order. Is it or is it not a rule of the House that no one but a Member of Parliament is


allowed to be in the Members' Lobby when a Division is in progress? If you do not rule that that is the case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want you to tell the police that it is wrong for them to stop—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Apparently the hon. Gentleman and the Chair are at cross purposes. No one is allowed to be present in the Members' Lobby during a Division. If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I apologise.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is all right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As long as we have that matter clear. I think I have ruled on the substantive point of order raised by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden).

Mr. Thomas Swain: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite possible that there may be another Division before Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair. As a consequence, you will be solely in charge of the affairs of the House. What I am asking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in support of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, is that in the interim period, until Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair, you will guarantee, with the authority that you have at your disposal, that no member of any public relations firm or any stranger will be allowed to remain for one second in the Lobby when the Division bells begin to ring.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can give that assurance. It may be that at the exact moment when the Division bells begin to ring people will be going into the Gallery. If so, they will be moved immediately by those on duty in the Members' Lobby. That disposes of the point.

Schedule 2

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr Peter Viggers: I beg to move Amendment No. 239, in page 75, leave out lines 15 to 17.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 240, in page 76, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert '15,000 gross tons'.

No. 241, in page 77, line 38, leave out
'except in the case of a warship'.

No. 242, in page 77, line 43, leave out from 'registered)' to end of line 2 on page 78.

Mr. Viggers: The effect of these amendments will be to delete from the Bill the names of three warship manufacturers, Vickers Shipbuilding Group Limited, Vosper Thornycroft Limited and Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited.
Whatever the case for the nationalisation of some parts of the aircraft or shipbuilding industry, the warship manufacturing industry has special factors. Vickers, at Barrow-in-Furness employs 13,000 people. Yarrow operates on the Clyde, and Vosper Thornycroft employs 7,000 people at Woolston, near Southampton, and at Cosham, near Portsmouth.
Warship manufacture is highly specialised. The basic cost of the vessel in substantially final form is normally only half or two-thirds of the total cost, which includes the weapon packs.
The warship manufacturers engage in design and construction and work with the customers in producing highly specialised vessels. The three yards that I have named are designated by the Royal Navy as "lead yards" for design and construction. This means that they not only design the ships but are instructed and authorised to carry out the construction of first-of-line vessels. This is extremely important, as close technical co-operation is needed during the period of construction. It is normal for the customer, be it the Royal Navy or the overseas customer, to place a team with the manufacturer during the period of construction, and the design evolves in that period. Often expensive changes take place in design during the period of construction. Immediate and important decisions, involving large amounts of money, are frequently needed to be taken at short notice by the warship manufacturer during the period of manufacture. Anything that damages the close local control of the warship manufacturers will be damaging for the industry.
Manufacturers of warships have an exceptionally successful export record. Vosper Thorneycroft alone has exported 60 different orders to 29 different countries totalling about £300 million in value


since 1960. It attributes that achievement to expert and flexible management, working with a skilful and willing work force, and to a strong team of designers of wide experience who rapidly and convincingly produce the designs of the ships that their customers require. In other words, it is a team effort. It tends to be a happy industry. It is hard working and has a good labour relations record.
Thornycroft has won a record number of Queen's awards to industry. Its turnover since 1966 has risen from £6½ million to £57 million a year. Its profit has risen from £400,000 to about £4 million this year. About 70 per cent. of its products are exported. However, the Government propose to pay only £4 million in compensation when they nationalise that company.
The important point about warship manufacture is the range of customers especially overseas customers. The Vosper Thornycroft record is impressive It provided four cruisers for Brazil, a corvette to Ghana, three fast patrol boats to Kenya, 24 fast patrol boats to Malaysia and two destroyers to Iran. The geographical spread of customers is mirrored by the political backgrounds of the régimes to which they are being exported.
I address my remarks especially to those who feel that a delicate conscience should govern the decision whether a building should take place. There are large numbers of countries to which orders are exported, the régimes in control of which may well not be approved. With the Government now seeking to bring increasing trade union involvement into management, I must ask the people working for the companies, through the Minister, whether they feel that their livelihood and the work they do should be under the possibly prejudicial hand of people who will seek to use political pressure to stop an order being fulfilled.
There is another point of importance. The Minister of State will be well aware of this. There are currently being built in different yards in this country warships that are intended for customers who may be mutually antipathetic. I shall not name names; it would be inappropriate and harmful for me to do so; but there are orders in hand in different companies whose destinations are countries the régimes of which might not agree, and

where the ships might be used against those manufactured by another company.
Again, I must ask the people working for these companies, through the Minister, whether they feel that it would be damaging for the industry to be nationalised so that there was only one company where it would be difficult for manufacture to take place for different countries unless all the countries which were customers were happy with each other. The Minister will take on board that point. He knows that orders would have been lost if the industry had been nationalised.
The effect of central control on the direction of orders would be disastrous in this industry. Vickers and Yarrow both operate in areas where unemployment is higher than in the Portsmouth and Southampton area. The temptation that a Government would find politically impossible to resist would be for the diversion of orders from an area of comparatively low unemployment to an area of higher unemployment. Indeed, that has happened. Already the Government have placed orders with Swan Hunter, despite the clearly stated policy of concentrating ship manufacture on the three main designated yards.

Mr. John Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that since before the turn of the century the Tyne shipbuilders have turned out some of the finest warships that have ever been built for this and many other countries? Does he recognise the insult that he pays to the shipbuilding workers of the Tyne when he suggests that they do not have the capability or the skills to build warships of the highest class, from frigates to battleships, if necessary?

Mr. Viggers: I did not say the words that were attributed to me by the hon. Gentleman. Nor was I seeking to deprecate the activities of Swan Hunter, which I am sure is a first-class yard. Since the Booz-Allen report it has been clearly stated Government policy that warship manufacture will be concentrated on three main warship manufacturers. On that basis, those three manufacturers have built up their productive capacity. The Press report in which the announcement was made of the Swan Hunter orders made it clear that the Minister announced the Swan. Hunter orders after receiving a


delegation of six Labour Members of Parliament. The Government will beyond peradventure be subject to intense political pressure to divert orders from the three main designated manufacturers to other areas where they would like the orders and the work.
Let each firm stand alone in terms of orders and let it compete fairly. Above all, for the sake of export orders, let not the industry be nationalised with the possible risk of diversion of orders from highly successful companies to those which have not been so successful in winning orders. The manner in which nationalisation control will be exercised also causes us alarm. I cite the example of the British Steel Corporation and its failure to take decisions on Shotton and Port Talbot. This is a record of dither and delay, which is clearly attributable to the nationalised industries.
Decisions are taken for the wrong motives. There is clear evidence of favouritism in yielding to special pressure, whether in Scotland, Wales, or even in Kingston upon Hull, when hon. Members sought to bring pressure so that orders were placed there. There is a clear need for a Government who act on behalf of all the people.
A special point is involved in warship manufacture. The Admiralty has a proud and jealous record of its own developments of projects. There is a catch phrase used in industry—"not invented here". If a project is invented by the Admiralty it is more likely to obtain ready backing. If the design is thought up somewhere else, it is uphill work to develop the project.
6.30 p.m.
Many of the brightest and most innovative ideas in warship manufacture were "not invented here" from the Admiralty's point of view and the ideas win through only because of the persistence and enthusiasm of the individuals and firms that develop them. This takes not only enthusiasm but money from the firms, and if the dead hand of nationalisation should fall on the industry, "not invented here" will become an article of faith.
Nationalisation will not allow small firms to fritter away their resources on individual projects. There will be a

central planning agency and "not invented here" will become the spirit in which it will work. Anyone running a nationalised industry will be obliged to impose a planning policy to cut out a large amount of development by smaller firms.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to a word that has been said about decentralisation. If he had taken the trouble to read our amendment, which the House approved, he would know that all the speculations in which he has indulged are utterly without foundation—but, then, the hon. Gentleman has not been here before this amendment.

Mr. Viggers: The Minister's last point is not true. He feels that the amendment will settle the matter, but I throw back at him the record of the British Steel Corporation and the deplorable statement by the Secretary of State for Industry on the failure to reach a decision on Port Talbot. Forget amendments: the Government must stand on their record, and it is pretty deplorable.
The awkward squad who want to develop new ideas and push through proposals which do not fit in with the Admiralty thinking will get in the way in a nationalised industry and may find it more attractive to work elsewhere rather than in an octopus spawned by the Government.
The financial record of warship manufacturers is outsanding. Vosper Thorneycroft has a magnificent record not only of profitability but of investment. Shareholders' funds increased from £12·9 million to £19·6 million last year, of which £4·9 million was accounted for by the revaluation of fixed assets, but a substantial amount resulted from the reinvestment of profits, which has been company policy for some years.
Warship manufacturers do not want or need nationalisation. One is forced to the conclusion that the Government are nationalising the warship manufacturers to balance and pay for the nationalisation of the other shipyards that need Government help. Nationalisation will reduce local control and flexibility. There is no reason for it, and it will do nothing to improve profits or investment.
Overseas customers like dealing with individual firms. They like our manufacturers, and this leads to orders, which lead to jobs. I am surprised that the hon. Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd) and Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) who have Vosper Thornycroft workers in their constituencies, are not here. No doubt they are engaged in important work elsewhere.
The nationalisation of warship manufacturers will cause a loss of jobs to the nation. For the manufacturers in general and Vosper Thornycroft in particular, it will lead to a diversion of profitable enterprise and employment to other less successful yards.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: I agree with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) about the products of the Vosper Thornycroft group. It makes a wide range of fighting ships which are sold all over the world, and has a record of construction and design that is second to none.
However, I feel that the hon. Member was being too pessimistic about the role of the warship building industry under the new corporation. None of the places that he mentioned has naval design teams as large as those in the North-East, particularly in the Swan Hunter group. That team had to work hard, on a competitive basis, to secure the recent orders for the group on the Tyne.
I confess that I was one of the hon. Members who lobbied the Minister responsible for defence procurement in an attempt to obtain the contracts. We were successful not because of political favour or lobbying but because it was known that the design team in the group was there at the right time and the right price, and that the yard could start work immediately on these highly sophisticated ships.
Countries all over the world have a high regard for the construction of British naval vessels. I do not think that nationalisation will diminish their enthusiasm for placing orders here. Most would even go to a totalitarian country if it provided the right ships at the right price. These countries will continue to come here whether the yards that we are discussing are included in or excluded from the State corporation.
I also wish that the hon. Members for Southampton were here, but I can assure the people in Vosper Thornycroft, in the Southampton area, and those in Yarrow, on the Clyde, that there will be plenty of work in naval construction, not merely for our own Navy but for others, and that even under a State corporation there will be a high level of competition. There will be an improvement in the capability of obtaining orders, because there will be much more research into the design of vessels. This research is already operating in some spheres. There is no need for gloom or worry. The naval side of the industry has a bright outlook.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) is more expert than I on shipbuilding and he will confirm that the workers, management and designers in the new corporation will be good enough to get out and win orders.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I support the amendment, and shall wish to emphasise some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
I should like to say first to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) that other shipbuilders can of course build warships, but the three yards with which we are concerned in the amendment do not construct any merchant ships. They are specialist warship builders. They are in a different category from other yards, and nationalisation is likely to damage the essential service that they give to our national defence effort and to exports.
Warship building is a very specialised type of shipbuilding, requiring large design teams and quality control and sales organisations quite beyond those needed in the less specialised sector. It is a special part of the industry, and there are good reasons why it should not be nationalised.
The first reason is especially important at present. About 60 per cent. of all orders for naval vessels placed by foreign governments come to Great Britain. This important contribution to our balance of trade surely cannot be overlooked by the Government.
It is questionable whether foreign Governments would be as willing to place orders with British State-owned yards as they are with British companies. We


have to remember that the commercial basis of and the secrecy built into contracts is a factor of which foreign Governments must take account. It is obviously essential to incorporate foreign equipment in warship design where overseas governments place orders. This must be a matter of the greatest possible secrecy to the Governments concerned. They must have complete confidence in that secrecy being maintained by the firms with which they place contracts. They need not necessarily wish our own Government to be aware of the full detail.
My second point is to draw attention to the progressive and continuing improvement in the volume and profitability of export sales. We have to remember that warship building was isolated or drawn away from the rest of British shipbuilding at the time of the Booz-Allen Report. It seems to me likely that there will be an increasing need to rely on exports than there was in the past.
Let me try to make that more plain. In the recent Defence Review, it seemed to some of us that the resources available for warship building or for maintaining employment in warship building yards were not to be very high and that there would be considerable concern about whether sufficient resources were available to maintain our own defences on what was believed to be the necessary level. If that is true, Government supporters cannot have it both ways. If they believe it right, in expenditure cuts, to reduce the amount of money spent on defence, they cannot then expect full employment in our warship building yards.
That brings me back to my first point, which is that the 60 per cent. of export orders that we now complete in our British yards will have to be increased still further. Therefore, consideration for foreign Governments placing orders here is perhaps higher than it has ever been since the 1920s. I hope that hon. Members who take a different view from me on defence will remember that.
I come, then, to my third point. In supplying the Royal Navy, the Government would be trading with themselves. I recall using the same argument in relation to former efforts at nationalisation.
I have never thought it a very good idea to have no competition between the person placing the order and the person making the goods. It will be said that as there are such massive grants it does not really matter, but I do not accept that. I think that there is room for considerable competitive spirit between orderer and builder. In trading with themselves, the Government are likely to damage the economic sense of the business, as there is not the same imperative need to arrive at realistic contracts.
Perhaps I can divert for a moment and illustrate what I mean by discussing briefly the position between the present Government and Govan Shipbuilders. It is well known, from exchanges in this House in recent weeks, that contracts have been taken on at a wholly uneconomic rate from a foreign Government in order to sustain employment. It may be that that has merit in cases where the situation is as bad as it would have been in Govan Shipbuilders had we not obtained these foreign orders from Kuwait, but the three yards with which we are dealing in this amendment are not in that position; they are in precisely the reverse position. They are earning for the country valuable contracts and they are carrying them out profitably, to the benefit of the country.
6.45 p.m.
In nationalisation, damage will undoubtedly prove to be caused, amongst other factors, by the removal of control from the man on the spot who is in the yard to the distant policy-making body. On this amendment you would not allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rehearse any of the arguments already put forward about distribution, to which the Minister of State referred. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said earlier, we have very little faith in the breakdown of huge corporations. The Minister of State will have achieved a miracle which even he might be modestly hesitant to recommend at this stage if he thinks that, through the shipbuilding corporation, he will achieve the breakdown of bureaucracy which we have not seen so far in nationalised industries.
There will also be a slowing down of technological advance. This is a very important factor. Throughout our long debates on this Bill, questions have been asked about the way in which such


matters would be handled, and whether each yard would continue to do its own research and development. But we are not really assured, because the Minister of State simply does not know. In this respect, he is in the happy position of being able to shrug his shoulders and point out that there is a corporation building up. My point is that it will probably build up much too large and be a much more substantial body than we want to see.
It is clear that the Government want to retain the profitable part of our industry—as profitable as it is now. I have heard Government supporters express the view that they wish to nationalise industries that are profitable because to date they have been able only to nationalise industries which, broadly speaking, are unprofitable. I have pointed out before that our shipbuilders—especially our warship builders and, in this case, Yarrows—have already had the experience of being taken into the amalgam that dragged them down from profitability. They have now regained a remarkable degree of profitability, and in no way will I support their inclusion in the nationalisation provisions. The three warship builders that we are considering have had quite sufficient changes in recent years. A further change at this stage would be very damaging. Once again they would be amalgamated with merchant shipbuilders which, throughout the country and throughout the Western world, are having a very difficult time.
I shall not go further into the question of the profitability of our warship builders, but, as I have said, there are considerable national assets in their success, in terms of advantage to our balance of payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport spoke of the investment made by Vosper Thornycroft. We have also to consider the investment made by Yarrows. Government supporters tend to concentrate their interest on the grants which have been made to the yard. However, apart from those grants and apart from the naval construction orders, the firm of Yarrows has invested many millions of pounds and now has an extremely up-to-date yard. That is no doubt due in part to Government grants, but part is due to the investment of considerable moneys from the firm's own resources. It cannot be

charged with earning profits on money paid over to it in grant form.
I have said before, as I said 10 years ago in this House, when the first amalgamation was suggested after the Geddes Report, that we simply cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. We have this tiny element of strength within the British shipbuilding industry. All I am asking the House to do is to support these amendments, so that the strong shall retain their strength and be the national asset that I believe them to be.

Mr. John Evans: I shall not detain the House long on those amendments because, frankly, I am amazed by them. I should very much like to know whether the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is supporting these amendments or wishes us to oppose them. To be honest, I am a little doubtful whether I should go into the Lobby with the Tory Party and support it on these amendments.
We have not actually faced the consequences of what would happen if the Government were to accept this amendment or were defeated on a vote on it; because the hon. Lady and others opposite have spoken of political pressure being used to persuade the Government of the day to transfer naval orders from Yarrow, Vickers and Vosper's to areas like Tyne and Humberside. If these firms were not taken into public ownership or were left out of public ownership, the political pressure on a Labour Government would be absolutely intolerable because the whole northern and Scottish groups of MPs would be pressing them constantly to ensure that Royal Navy orders were placed in publicly-owned yards. Rather than saving the yards by taking them out of public ownership, I suggest we are threatening them very much by suggesting that they should not be taken out of public ownership.
In considering the question of orders for the Royal Navy I recall serving a part of my apprenticeship in a warship, the "Albion", and I know a little about warship construction. I well recall that that ship was in Swan Hunter's so long, because of constant changes in design. that some apprentices—fitters, boilermakers, painters and electricians—served their entire five-year apprenticeship on it.


It was said that when the ship finally left the Swan Hunter yard the band played "Will ye no come back again?". Those who have some knowledge of warship construction will know that it is the fattest, healthiest, most profitable form of shipbuilding order one can get; because, frankly, tender prices for warship construction are meaningless. As has been said here, design changes almost weekly, sometimes even daily, so that the tender price is quite meaningless, and there is is always a fat profit to be made on warships.
It is not surprising that companies like Vosper's, Vickers and Yarrow went over almost exclusively to warship building, which is very profitable. They have been able to invest some of their profits in modernising their yards, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that those profits came largely from the taxpayer, because in the main it is the taxpayers who are placing the orders. I recognise that these firms have export orders, but I am making the point that the backbone of the yards and their prosperity have come from orders from the Royal Navy, and not only warships in the accepted sense but fleet oilers and other Ministry of Defence vessels, orders for which have been placed with these yards.
People on the Tyne—and I now represent a Mersey constituency—could not understand why we did not get a fairer crack of the whip on Ministry of Defence orders for warships. In the unlikely event of this amendment succeeding, that will be greatly welcomed by some shipbuilders in other yards because I say here in this House that undoubtedly we shall use maximum political pressure on the Government to transfer orders for these yards, if they are not publicly owned, into publicly-owned industry. Warship orders have always been political. It has always been the case that orders have been given or ships sent for repair to places where unemployment is heavy. That has happened constantly since particular areas were stricken with heavy unemployment.
I recall one vessel, a fleet oiler named "Iona" which was in and out of the Tyne so much that it was generally recognised it did not need a pilot or tugs and could manoeuvre itself alongside the jetty. Every time unemployment started to rise the Government of the

day, whether Labour or Conservative, would send warships, fleet oilers or Ministry of Defence ships to the Tyne for repair during periods of heavy unemployment.
An hon. Gentleman opposite talked on and on about nationalisation and centralised control, and made a strong point about the decentralisation proposals involved in the Bill. These will be successful because the shipyard workers themselves will ensure that they are, but orders for the Admiralty are completely centrally controlled, because they come from Bath. Many times shipyard workers have to wait days or weeks for designs, drawings or confirmation of changes to come from Bath. To use a classic phrase, they are waiting for "the man from Bath". Therefore, when we talk of local control we are not talking of the warship building industry, because that is centrally controlled and in the main is operated from Bath. I submit to the House that it is not in the best interests of the industry to suggest that these firms should be taken out.
Finally, on the export field, it is understandable that we have built a very strong, worthwhile business building warships for the Royal Navy so that in this field the yards have acquired expertise which they can use in obtaining orders from foreign Governments. I see no danger whatsoever that any of these orders will be transferred from these yards. That is simply trying to throw a scare into my hon Friends from Southampton, who will not be influenced by it. There is no danger whatever to these yards. I expect a fairer spread of orders, but I submit that those yards which have built up expertise in this field will continue to use that expertise. I expect a fairer spread of orders throughout the British shipbuilding industry, and I mean orders for all types of ships throughout the United Kingdom; because if we are to save our industry, undoubtedly we need a national plan. This Bill will give us that, and I am sure that the prosperity of yards like Vosper's, Vickers and Yarrow will continue even more under a nationalised setup than under a private enterprise set-up.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Neville Trotter: As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport


(Mr. Viggers) has pointed out, we are talking here of a success story. These three are among the most successful private enterprise firms in Britain. They have given the Royal Navy a magnificent fleet and they are the leaders in exports of naval vessels in the whole world. If one looks through the Fleet lists of the world one finds that throughout the whole range, from the Argentine to Zanzibar, practically all the countries in the free world build their navies or other vessels in these three yards. It is a remarkable story of good design, good ships, and, obviously, competitive prices. It is a story that has resulted in profits for these companies, and very substantial advantage in balance of payments terms for the whole of Britain.
One must start opposition to the nationalisation of these three companies, therefore, by asking what possible further advantage can come from changing an existing success story. I can see no reason whatsoever to suppose that any good can come from these three firms passing into public ownership; and all the probabilities are that this will be a story of disaster. As for the effect of nationalisation on the Royal Navy, when the Russian destroyer "Obraztsovy" called at Portsmouth it was noted that an air conditioner of Japanese make was installed in the wardroom. I do not know whether we shall ever reach the stage when the Royal Navy will have to depend on Japan for part of its equipment.
Certainly I would have thought that the effect of nationalisation on the Royal Navy's three principal specialist suppliers could only be disastrous. As my hon. Friend, the Member for Gosport pointed out, it is essential that these three companies should retain efficient independent design teams.
One only has to look at the difference between the Type 21 and Type 22 frigates. The Type 21 frigate was designed by Vosper and Yarrow. It was built on time at a fraction of the cost of the Type 22 frigate, designed by the Navy Department's team at Bath. This is just one example of private enterprise producing an excellent ship on time, and far more cheaply.
Then there is the question of cost benefit to the public. I see no way in

which public ownership of yards can bring any advantage. We shall see two public bodies arguing with each other—the Royal Navy versus British Shipbuilders. In that sort of argument only an optimistic person could believe that public funds would figure very much. There would not be the keenness of discussion and negotiation there has been in the past when the question of the survival of these three yards as private enterprises was at stake. The taxpayer will find himself paying more for ships for the Royal Navy.
I do not think that hon. Members fully understand the effect of the rundown of the Navy as is being planned and executed by the present Government. On 26th April I asked the Minister of State for Defence for an estimate of the number of people engaged in the construction of warships for the Royal Navy. His answer was that there were about 20,000. On 8th April I asked for an estimate of the number of jobs which would be lost as a result of the reduction in equipment orders, particularly in the Royal Navy. He replied:
The Defence Review reductions in the Royal Navy's shipbuilding programme will mean that about 11,000 direct job opportunities in the shipbuilding industry will be lost over the next 10 years."—[Official Report, 8th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 285.]
The first answer referred to 20,000 on warship building, so there is a staggering reduction ahead of warship builders as a result of the defence cuts. And that is before the last cuts, a week ago.
These three firms face very serious problems indeed for the future as a result of the Government's decision to cut defence expenditure, in the Navy particularly. Therefore, they will rely more than ever on miantaining export successes. If they are not successful in the export field there will be most serious problems, and a very substantial loss of jobs. With 11,000 jobs already at stake, we shall need to export more warships than ever before to maintain job numbers. The Minister of State seems to think that State ownership will help to increase exports. Some of his hon. Friends share that view. They must be supreme optimists of all time if they believe that. The ordinary man in the street would not agree with them for one moment.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Member aware that, under State ownership, British Leyland is the biggest exporter this country has?

Mr. Trotter: But it was the biggest to begin with, and the situation has not changed yet. British Leyland has not been going on very long under State ownership.
I am not suggesting that there will be any change in 12 months or so, but over five or six years, there could be a very substantial change in the export orders of the three firms I have mentioned. I cannot see confidence being retained by foreign Governments.
In the past we have seen the extraordinary antics of Government supporters over the countries we should supply with ships. A survey ship was built for South Africa by one of these firms. Would the Government allow that to be sold when the firm is nationalised?

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Member aware that in the 1950s and early 1960s we could have had many orders for ships from the Eastern bloc but under the Battle Act we were not allowed to supply them? So the fact that we do not agree with the Governments of some countries and do not supply them with ships does not make much difference.

Mr. Trotter: Is the right hon. Member referring to sales to the Warsaw Pact countries? I hope that Labour Members are not actually suggesting that we should build ships for the Russian navy. I do not think they would want them, because they have large resources of their own.

Mr. Fernyhough: They were two tankers built in Hebburn yard in my constituency in 1950. These two oil tankers were not allowed to be delivered to Poland, although Poland had paid for them. The Americans stopped us from selling the tankers to Poland, even though Polish seamen had come to take delivery.

Mr. Trotter: They must have been Navy tankers.

Mr. Fernyhough: They were oil tankers.

Mr. Trotter: Certainly there have been sales of merchant ships to the Soviet

Union in recent times. I do not think any hon. Members would suggest that we should sell warships to the Soviet Union. They have enough of their own. They are just starting to produce aircraft carriers when we are getting ready to dispose of "Ark Royal".
Foreign Governments will begin to look around to find a more stable situation in which to place their warship orders. They will want a situation without political interference and control of the shipyards.
There is the question of the supply of spares. In maintaining the modernity of a ship after it is built it is much more advantageous to return for refits to the country in which that ship was originally built.
Then there is a question of bureaucracy in State ownership. The image of State-Britain abroad is one of a very inefficient outfit. This is the pattern one finds as one travels around the world, and to apply it to the manufacture of warships will lead to our being out on the deal.
Another question is that of muddle. For example, what shall we see on the Clyde? Shall we see Govan and Yarrow reorganised as they were? I suspect that, if they are locked together in that way, Yarrow will no longer be with us. People working in Yarrow would not want to be brought back in a forced marriage with their colleagues in Govan up the road.
There is also the question of names. The federation wishes to see all the names put in the dustbin. Apparently it wishes to be referred to as British Shipyards—Tyne, British Shipyards—Solent, or British Shipyards—Clyde, depending on the area of the country. That would be the height of folly, because Vosper, Vickers and Yarrow are world-famous names, particularly for warships. To scrap them would be the height of folly.
The Government believe in industrial democracy and the Secretary of State for Energy says he believes that no executive action should be taken in a State-owned organisation without the agreement of the work force. So if the trade union leaders in the shipyards say that a name should be scrapped, even if that would be the height of folly, perhaps under the industrial democracy envisaged by the


Government the trade union leaders will get their way. We have no idea of the Government's views on that sort of issue. All that is still entirely in the air. If we scrap the names of Vickers, Yarrow and Vosper we shall be throwing away assets of immense value to this country.
We have no idea of the organisation which is to be established under the new corporations. We do not know where the headquarters will be located, although the Government have had months in which to discuss that. We do not know whether there will be a specialist warship division, but it is only realistic to assume that, if a number of high-powered and expensive Chiefs are appointed at head office, they will want a considerable number of Indians beneath them to control.
Whatever the Government may say at the moment, I believe that we shall see a very large headquarters organisation with certain gentlemen specialising in the control of warship building. There is the suggestion that, for the sake of peace in the provinces, there will be a geographical layer of administration, and that there will be the amalgamation of yards under individual management. All this is uncertain. After two and a half years in office, the Government have said nothing on these points.
There is the possibility of work being directed. The Govan yard, for example, after some years of nationalisation, could get no orders without taking them at a massive loss which the Minister of State is, perhaps, unwilling or unable to quantify. It may be that in future orders will be diverted from Yarrow's up the river, to keep Govan going. Cammell Laird was one of the firms building Type 42 destroyers along with Swan Hunter and Vickers. Recently, two more Type 42 destroyers were put out for tender. Cammell Laird put in for one, and possibly two, because without them the company would be coming to the end of its naval work, but the orders went to Swan Hunter and Vosper Thornycroft. Perhaps the Navy was told that the orders should go to those companies; but it is unlikely, in view of the unemployment on Merseyside, for there to be a ministerial decision deliberately to divert work away from the Mersey. Perhaps Cammell Laird lost the order because it could not match the price or delivery of its competitors.
What will be the future position? The head of British Shipbuilders is the present head of Cammell Laird, a gentleman of strong views who wishes to see the headquarters of the corporation placed in that backwater of British shipbuilding on the Mersey. Perhaps he will have similar views about where the work should go in future. What evidence does the work force at Vosper's, Yarrow, or even Vickers have that in future orders will not be diverted to Cammell Laird just because the chief executive of the corporation thinks it is a good idea.
We have had no argument show that nationalisation will be of any advantage to these firms. The country cannot afford to nationalise these industries and those who work in them can ill afford it, either. There would be a saving of public funds if they were omitted from the nationalisation proposals. I am sure that the IMF would rejoice, and the Chancellor would find his problems that much reduced if the money were saved. These firms mus export to survive, and they are much more likely to do so if they remain in the efficient hands that have brought them to their present successful position.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I hope that the Government will resist the amendment. It is an exercise in necrophilia—intercourse with the dead—and that will happen after the vote. I want to see the warship builders in the corral. My favourite television programme concerns a place called Shiloh, and that means "corral of peace". I want peace in industry.
I know Yarrow very well and I can understand the loss of face felt by Sir Eric Yarrow under the nationalisation criteria. Throughout my time in this House I have been the big ear for Yarrow, lobbying Ministers. This place is one big pressure group, but where do the pressure groups come from after nationalisation? Tony Griffin will be the organising manager. Scott Lithgow builds submarines and warships on the Clyde, and Ross Belch is on record as saying that he will help to make the nationalised industry work.
The reality of life is that the big nationalised group must be the recipient of defence orders. Yarrow has a tremendous record. If one goes to its yard, one might as well go to the United Nations.


It builds for the world. I do not see anything to stop that yard, or any other, from building for the world after nationalisation. There will be only a change of name.
Perhaps it would be as well if I used less Greek than usual. Let me refer only to Pandora and, with her, Pyrrha and Deucalion, the brother and sister who threw their mother's bones over their shoulders. And so in the sense that these shipyards want to throw their bones out and remain outside the bigger group, they are making a big mistake.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: We have heard about Yarrow. I hope that hon. Members will not consider that I am being partial if I refer only to Scottish yards.
On one side of the Clyde there is Yarrow and on the other is Govan Shipbuilders. At one time Yarrow was part of Govan and the organisation made a loss. Yarrow managed to get out, and since then, in the last four years or so, it has made a gross profit of £16 million with a net profit of £10 million. It has reinvested £8 million of that amount. It has increased its work force from 3,500 to 5,000. In other words, it has created a real and viable improvement. One of the prides of the world is to be able to say "That ship was built at Yarrow's". I do not believe that that record, that capacity and that skill will be sustained after nationalisation.
To confirm me in that belief I had only to listen to the words of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), who said that, after nationalisation, the Members of Parliament representing the Clyde and the Tyne would no longer need to fight one another for the orders; he said they would not need to badger the Government or the Ministry of Defence because there would be a fair spread of orders.
Let us examine that philosophy. The Minister of State was responsible for steering through that crapulous Bill which claims as its ideal to make British industry more efficient and to remove over-manning. Let us consider the concept whereby we shall be fair to the yards of the Tyne and the Clyde. We shall say "One order for you, and one for you". Orders will be artificially created and granted, regardless of the

capacity of the yard to win, sustain and execute them. We shall introduce an element of inefficiency and bureaucracy. Who is to take this great decision?
When the work forces on the Clyde who have taken pride in the success of their companies see work being sacrificed to some other yard called British Shipbuilders (Tyne) will they not come to their Members of Parliament and say "What about our jobs?" Will the Government say, as I. fear is the lesson of nationalisation, "However many orders you have or however many orders you have not, whatever profits you make or whatever losses you make, there is a philosophy of nationalisation which permits us, your big brother and your kind father, to guarantee your job and to guarantee from the bottomless sack of international money the funds required to sustain the enterprise however much it may fail."
I have heard no argument to tell me that, when the yards are nationalised, they will be more efficient, more profitable and better employed, or that employment will increase. I have heard arguments that employment will be guaranteed, and that, regardless of the creative capacity of the yard, orders will be spread amongst the yards, but I have heard no word to suggest that the yards will be more efficiently or more imaginatively run.
The yards will be run by bureaucracy. The instant decisions that have to be taken daily at Yarrow will take months. A decision will first have to be taken about which piece of bureaucracy shall decide. The country has a disease, easy to contract and difficult to cure, and that is the justification for bureaucracy. As soon as there is one tier, there is justification for a lower tier and another below that. That is what will happen.
I regret that the great and proud quality that made Yarrow will be lost. We threw away the markets of Southern Africa. They were proud to say that their ships had been made in Yarrow. Now they are made in France. I cannot believe that there are many foreign countries which will order boats, sail them and say that they are proud that they were made in British Shipbuilders (Clyde). The Bill is destructive of a great craft in Scotland, and I regret that tonight we


shall purblind see the fate of British shipbuilding.

Mr. Kaufman: The Opposition are telling us that it is inappropriate and unsuitable for warships to be manufactured under the chairmanship of Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, Controller of the Navy since 1971; educated at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth; joined Royal Navy 1934; went to sea as a midshipman in 1939; war service in the East Indies, Mediterranean, Atlantic, North Russia and Far East; specialised in nagivation, 1944; Staff College, 1952; Imperial Defence College, 1963; Commander HMS "Ark Royal" 1964–65; Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Warfare) 1966–68; Flag Officer, Second-in-Command, Far East Fleet, 1968–69; Flag Officer, Plymouth, Commander, Central Sub Area Eastern Atlantic, and Commander Plymouth, Sub Area Channel, 1969–71; Commander 1951; Captain 1956; Rear-Admiral 1966; Vice-Admiral 1968; Admiral 1971. That has nothing to do with the manufacture of warships.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman has tilted at his windmill. He has talked even more irredeemable rubbish than usual. I see that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—speaking for the shipyard workers of Hampstead—has come to reinforce the rubbish spoken by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).
We are told by Opposition Members that this man, with this flimsy and irrelevant record, is inadequate to have anything to do with the building of warships. We are also told that it is inappropriate to have a publicly-owned warship building industry because the customers will not like it. Who are these customers? Are they private mariners? Are they enthusiasts who go around collecting warships as a hobby? No, they are Governments. The only people I know who buy warships are Governments, and they are publicly owned. It is an interesting concept of public ownership that the armed forces of foreign Governments will be repelled by the idea of buying warships manufactured by the publicly-owned British Shipbuilders under Admiral Griffin.

Mr. Viggers: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way. Had it not been for the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) would have talked the greatest rubbish in the debate. I see that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—speaking for the shipyard workers of Blaby—has come in. I do not know whether his mask is slipping.
The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, the hon. Member for Gosport—who has taken no interest in the Bill until tonight—and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter)—who has taken a great and informed interest in the Bill—have all disregarded the statements made over and over again by the Organising Committee and in the House by Ministers that it is almost certain that the component companies of British Shipbuilders will retain their present names. All the fanciful romancing about British Shipbuilders (Tyne) and British Shipbuilders (Clyde) served to fill up the speeches of hon. Gentlemen who have taken no interest in the Bill until its final stages, but it is completely inaccurate.
Opposition Members appear to subscribe to the theory that only loss-making companies shall be taken into public ownership. That is what the Conservatives did when they were in power. They nationalised Rolls-Royce when it went bankrupt. They nationalised Govan Shipyards—which is held up to us as such a paragon of failure. They did it. They were the people who had four years of nationalising loss-makers, and they believe that a Socialist Government should nationalise only loss-makers.
The Government do not accept that proposition. We do not believe it is right that losses should be nationalised and profits "profitised". Nor do we accept a shipbuilding industry that is privately profitable on the basis of public funding.
It would be extremely illogical if, in taking the shipbuilding industry into public ownership, we were to exclude precisely those companies that are most dependent on the Government for their survival. Yet that is what the amendment seeks to do.
Hon. Members have placed great stress on the warship building sector. The Government believe that as a nation we must have an overall plan for our national shipbuilding resources. Arguments advanced of the importance of warship building are arguments for including this sector in the future public sector.
7.30 p.m.
The significance of warship building to the industry is clear. In a booklet commissioned by two of the warship builders named in the Bill—namely, Vosper Thornycroft Limited and Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd, entitled "The Special Case For The Naval Shipbuilders"—it is claimed that in five years the two companies have secured export orders worth £273 million. The three warship builders give employment to 20,000 men. Those are all good reasons for vesting the companies in British Shipbuilders and not for excluding them.
Great play has been made of the fact that a considerable part of the profits of these companies comes from export orders, but it is not trumpeted so loudly that those orders are obtained only because the warship builders are major Ministry of Defence contractors. It is on that that their standing as naval builders depends. The fact that their products are acceptable to the Royal Navy means that they are acceptable to other nations' navies. In addition—this confutes what many Opposition Members have been claiming—they obtain a great deal of assistance from the Ministry of Defence in winning orders. That is the purpose of MOD Defence Sales. Construction grants provided under the Industry Act 1972, enacted by the Conservative Government, were paid on export warship contracts but not on Ministry of Defence orders. That is a point that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) got completely wrong in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), who has explained why she cannot be here, and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire dealt in great detail with Yarrows. Anyone would think that the company was the epitome of sturdy, independent private enterprise. In fact, the company was

rescued from insolvency by a Ministry of Defence loan of £4½ million in 1971. Sir Eric Yarrow's letter to shareholders on 12th March 1971 indicated that the loss for the 10 months ending 30th June 1970 would be about £3 million.
The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced to Parliament on 10th February 1971 that it was the Government's decision that the Ministry of Defence would make a loan to Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited towards meeting its requirements for working capital. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Both Yarrow (Shipbuilders) and UCS have encountered difficulties in recent years and both face problems of serious cash deficiency."—[Official Report, 10th February 1971, Vol. 811, c. 809.]
If it had not been for Government aid, the company's shares would now be completely worthless. Without public money Yarrows would not be in a position to receive any compensation.
Opposition Members have talked about the profitability of Yarrows, but let us look at what lies behind the profits. Pre-tax profits include over £4 million in Government grants, including £2·8 million in construction grants and £1·2 million in regional employment premium. To get a clearer view of the picture, we need to look at the six years from 1970 to 1975. The 1970 results showed post- and pre-tax losses of £2·72 million. Cumulative pre-tax profits for the six years were £13·93 million. Post-tax profits were £7·59 million. Government grants in this period amounted to £4·36 million.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Tell us about taxation.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is gibbering on so much that he does not listen to what is said.
When the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East spoke in Committee in February 1971 about Yarrows profits she conveniently excluded 1970 from her calculations. In that year certain provisions for future losses were set up—provisions that contributed £1·45 million to profitability in the five subsequent years as those provisions were written back. It is also a fact that net interest received,


after deducting interest paid, contributed £1·8 million of profits during the years in question. This is a perfectly proper credit to profits; it is not an operating profit.
The case put up by the Opposition is bogus. The case for the nationalisation of the warship companies is unanswerable, and I hope that the House will support the Government in that proposition.

Mr. Tom King: As we draw towards the end of these long sessions on the Bill, we get to know the Minister of State better and better. One of the Kaufman laws that we now recognise is that the weaker the case, the greater the abuse and the more supercilious the approach.
The hon. Gentleman, speaking as he does with great authority for the shipyard workers of Manchester, Ardwick —that is the way in which he referred to several of my hon. Friends—was unwise to refer to Admiral Griffin. He brought him into the debate; no one else did. The admiral is someone with distinguished naval service, but unfortunately—the Minister of State raised the matter—he has never built a ship in his life. He is now to be Chairman of British Shipbuilders.
I am bound to say that there have been criticisms by a Select Committee of certain of the ways in which warships were ordered by the procurement department. I thought that the Minister of State made a singularly prolonged non-point when he read out the distinguished war service of someone whom the Opposition have not criticised. However, in all that record of service there is no experience of shipbuilding.
The whole point of the debate on the warship builders—I hope that this is the concern of all hon. Members—is whether those who work in the industry are likely to be better or worse off when nationalisation takes place. I shall explain why we believe that the future of the yards, the prosperity of the people who work in them, the prosperity of the regions where they are located and, therefore, the national interest would be better served if they remained independent.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said he could promise that there would be plenty of orders both for specialist warship builders and for other

yards in the United Kingdom. I do not know what special access to the placing of shipyard orders the hon. Gentleman has. I do not know how he is able to override the projections that I think are accepted by the Government of a worldwide slump in shipbuilding and a 100 per cent. excess of capacity over demand. At present there is twice as much capacity as projected demanded over the coming years. In those circumstances, a promise of ample orders is obviously unrealistic.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans)—I notice that neither the hon. Member for Wallsend nor the hon. Member for Newton has been in the Chamber to hear the Minister or myself—said that there would be a fairer spread of orders. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) wisely absented himself from the debate at that stage. What do his hon. Friends mean? A fairer spread of orders in terms of someone who works for Swan Hunter can only mean fewer orders elsewhere. Surely the logic of that is inevitable.
When we hear where the real threats to employment lie, we must be struck by the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). He quoted figures from an official parliamentary answer. According to that answer, there are now 20,000 people engaged in warship building. The likely job losses forecast by the Government in their own answer amount to 11,000 over the next 10 years as a result of the defence cuts. If we look to find where the damage to these industries is likely to come from, we find that the real responsibility lies with the defence cuts which have been announced. If that is true, the only hope for the yards lies with an even greater export achievement.
The main burden of our case is that export orders are likely to be damaged by a nationalised corporation. The Minister of State thought that he had made a telling point when he said "How can people object to buying from a Government when most of those who buy warships are Governments?" That might sound a quite good point until one thinks about it. It is the experience of all who work in the industry—I do not think that the Minister of State has had that privilege any more than I have, but I refer to my experience and intelligence —that Governments prefer not to deal


directly Government to Government in these matters, some of which are confidential.

Mr. Ron Thomas: rose—

Mr. King: No, I shall not give way as we are against the guillotine.

Moreover, it is possible at any time for Governments—

It being twenty minutes to Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th] and the Resolution [27th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 303, noes 313.

[For Division List No. 299 see col. 1037]

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 258, in page 75, leave out lines 19 to 26.—[Mr. Tom King.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 310.

[For Division List No. 300 see col. 1047]

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 247, in page 75, leave out line 20.—[Mr. Tom King.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 311.

[For Division List No. 301 see col. 1047] Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 259, in page 75, leave out lines 28 to 30.—[Mr. Torn King.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 310.

[For Division List No. 302 see col. 1051]

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 219, in page 77, line 4, at end insert:
'and
(d) on 21st November 1975 the number of persons employed by that company in any city or town engaged exclusively in the business of repairing, refitting, converting or maintaining ships exceeded 300, provided that the company is not a member of the same group of companies as a shipbuilding company falling within the description in paragraph 2 above '—[Mr. Gwynfor Evans.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 304. Noes 311.

[For Division List No. 303 see col. 1057]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I now propose to put the Question on all amendments moved by a Member of the Government down to Schedule 7, Amendments Nos. 197 to 208. With the agreement of the House, I propose to put one Question on all of them.

Schedule 3

VESTING OF ASSETS OF UNDERTAKINGS IN ACQUIRED COMPANIES

Amendments made: No. 197, in page 78, line 14, after second 'the', insert 'associated'.

No. 198, in page 78, line 25, leave out from which ' to was ' in line 26 and insert:
'an associated privately owned company'

No. 199, in page 78, line 37, leave out any 'officer of' and insert:
'a person holding a particular post in'.

No. 200, in page 78, line 40, leave out from 'the' to 'company' in line 42 and insert:
'person holding the most nearly equivalent post in the acquired'.—[Mr. Varley.]

Schedule 4

ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN ASSETS

Amendments made: No. 201, in page 79, line 42, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 202, in page 80, line 26, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 203, in page 80, line 31, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 204, in page 80, line 47, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 205, in page 80, line 50, at end insert
and
(aa) in calculating the price for which they were to be sold, any charges to which they were subject had been disregarded, and'.

No. 206, in page 81, line 5, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 207, in page 81, line 45, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.

No. 208, in page 82, line 4, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.—[Mr. Varley.]

Schedule 7

PROCEDURE ETC. OF ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

Mr. Trotter: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 245, in page 91, line 4, at end add—
'14. The decisions of an Arbitration Tribunal, and the reasons therefore, as to the value of the compensation to be issued for any security shall if the relevant stockholders' representative agrees be made available to the stockholders' representative for any other security'.
Unless this amendment is carried, decisions of the arbitration tribunal will not be available to those taking part—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman say that he "formally" moved the amendment. The usual custom is that an hon. Member formally moves an amendment, and that is it. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would then sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say anything of the kind.

Mr. Trotter: I move the amendment, and I do so with complete informality.
In view of the Government's provisions for the computation of compensation, it is reasonable to assume that there will be arbitration proceedings in each of these 43 cases. It is necessary, therefore, that a pattern should be established and that it should be known to all those taking part as representatives of stockholders in the discussions before arbitration tribunals.
We know that a considerable period of time is likely to elapse before all the hearings can take place. We know that there are 43 sets of books to be examined by a firm of auditors on behalf of the Government. Therefore, it is important that we should have the speediest possible arbitration hearings when that stage is reached, to determine the amount of compensation.
It will be of great assistance to those representing stockholders if they are aware of decisions on previous hearings in other cases brought under the Act. That is the purpose of this amendment, so that if any stockholders' representative in any one case agrees, there should be made available to the stockholders of other companies the reasons given by the arbitration tribunal for its findings, to provide a pattern for use in establishing a precedent between cases.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but his amendment will not achieve anything that cannot already be achieved, because under the existing Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 and under the appropriate regulations governing the procedure on tribunals, for which provision is made in paragraphs 5(1) and 10(1) of Schedule 7 and also in Clause 42(10) of this Bill, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal will be included in Schedule 1 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971; so that not only does this Act require tribunals listed in Schedule 1 to furnish interested bodies with
a statement, either written or oral, of the reasons for the decision, if requested, on or before the giving or notification of decision, to state the reasons
but in addition to that, we intend to make regulations under Schedule 7 to achieve the result that the hon. Gentleman desires, in the same way as was done in the regulations governing the


conduct of the Iron and Steel Arbitration Tribunal. In the light of the reasons that I have just listed, and also in the light of a letter written to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 28th April, I hope that he will now be able to ask leave of the House to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Trotter: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.53 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In doing so I should like to say although this may not be the last occasion on which we discuss this Bill in this House —because, for example, another place may want to pass a minor amendment or two with which we shall have to deal —I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Under-Secretary of State and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer) for taking this Bill so far success, fully up to this Third reading stage. They and my hon. and right hon. Friends who were members of the Standing Committee must take credit for getting the Bill this far. The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary had to bear the brunt of the 58 Committee sittings and the hundreds of hours of debate, and we have all come to admire not only their hard work but their skill and, not least, their stamina. When this Bill reaches the statute book, as it will, it will be my hon. Friends who not only deserve but will get the credit. They argued successfully for the public ownership of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries during those debates throughout the consideration of the Bill.
Public ownership is urgently needed for both industries, and it has been asked for by the workers in those industries. On Second Reading, I set out the case for taking the aircraft industry into public ownership. The need to combine the resources of the two main airframe companies is widely accepted. I believe that it is accepted by the Opposition. Ten years after the Plowden Committee's report, private enterprise has failed to bring that about. A merger under public ownership will improve public account-

ability in an industry that is heavily dependent on Government orders in the military field and on Government support in the civil field. Under public ownership it will be possible to take key strategic decisions on a coherent basis. This powerful case has never been challenged effectively.
The need for the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley Aviation to combine their strengths is illustrated by the recent discussions between aircraft manufacturers in Europe and America about collaboration on future civil aircraft projects. These discussions have made a unified approach even more urgent. The British Aircraft Corporation has its Concorde and Jaguar links with France and its MRCA-Tornado links with Germany and Italy. Hawker Siddeley has its European Airbus links with Germany and France and its Harrier and other links with McDonnell-Douglas.
Over recent months the stark reality has forced itself increasingly on the aircraft industry that the United Kingdom must speak with a single authoritative voice. We must sort out what project to back and which partners to work with, and we cannot do that while we are divided. We must combine our resources urgently.
At last the companies have begun to work together in this sector, with the Organising Committee taking the initiative and giving the lead. The Organising Committee, which is now in business, provides a talented team to lead the industry at a critical time. It includes some of the ablest men in industry, and able and experienced men from the trade union movement and outside industry. All of them are committed to making a success of the industry after vesting day and they are hard at work in preparation.
The case for nationalising the shipbuilding industry is overwhelming. Britain's shipyards have lost their formerly dominant position since the war. In 1955 our merchant ship output of 1·3 million gross registered tons was larger than that of any other country and amounted to 26 per cent. of the world total. In under 20 years after that, our share of the market in tonnage terms slipped to only 3·6 per cent.
Management and unions now accept that to survive as a world shipbuilding


nation we must have a coherent shipbuilding strategy. Moreover, the problems of over-capacity in shipbuilding are now worse than they have been since the 1930s. New Orders for ships over the next five years are likely to fall far short of world capacity. In these circumstances, the case for a concerted national effort is overwhelming. In the Government's view, the public ownership proposals in the Bill offer the only satisfactory prospect of a unified national shipbuilding effort, and without a unified effort the industry will simply not survive.
In ship repairing, there is a clear need for new investment in more modern facilities, for which Government funds will be essential. Without this modernisation, employment in the industry will undoubtedly decline.
The most significant ship repairing units are those which are located on the main estuaries in Great Britain—fox example the Mersey, the Tyne, the Thames, the Bristol Channel, the Humber, Falmouth or the Lower Clyde. The Bill will bring into public ownership all the large ship-repairing companies located on the main estuaries. This will enable the corporation to produce a coherent strategy for the larger ship-repairing yards as a whole.
Nationalisation of the specialist makers of slow-speed diesel marine engines is equally necessary, because they are dependent on the rest of the shipbuilding industry. The future survival and success of these companies are completely bound up with their role as makers of 80 per cent. of all engines supplied to the merchant shipbuilders named in the Bill.
At the present difficult stage in the affairs of these industries, we must end uncertainty quickly. We have assembled a first-class team in the organising committee, which has made an outstandingly good start. We have begun a series of important tripartite discussions between Government, the Organising Committee and the trade unions in which we are looking at ways of tackling the problems of shipbuilding in a united way. But the Organising Committee cannot really get to grips with the problems confronting the industries until the Bill is on the statute book. Failure to achieve this would have serious consequences for all those

involved in shipbuilding, ship repair and related activities.
One of the Bill's main themes is industrial democracy, and this is an aspect of the Bill which has been significantly extended on Report. Industrial democracy is central to the Bill in a number of ways. First, we decided to introduce the Bill partly as a result of the expressed wishes of the workers in the two industries, through their representative unions. Second, one of the social priorities of this Government is to bring about an irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people. This measure is one part of the fulfilment of that priority in industry. Third, there is the plain fact that efficiency follows consent.
Industrial democracy reflects one of the most hopeful themes of the nation's present mood. It is an opportunity to enlist the commitment and enthusiasm of workers, at all levels, to the industries of which they are a vital part. Participation and consent are at the heart of our strategy for the regeneration of British industry.
It is right, therefore, that the most important changes to the Bill on Report have been made in the field of industrial democracy. The amendments, taken together, place a positive duty on the corporations to promote industrial democracy, to enter into consultations with the unions within three months of vesting on how it should be done, and to have regard to industrial democracy in drawing up their organisation and reviewing it periodically.
The Bill already contained a requirement to include in each annual report a report on progress in promoting industrial democracy. These provisions clearly establish industrial democracy as one of the main terms of reference of the corporations. The Bill lays down a framework which will keep industrial democracy to the front of the corporations' minds, but it avoids thrusting down the industries' throats a particular structure which may not be suitable and which may not be what the workers in them favour.
Yesterday evening I said that the Government were considering what they could do about the situation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol,


North-West (Mr. Thomas) in relation to staff associations when he spoke to Amendment No. 329, which sought to limit the definition of "relevant trade union" to CSEU unions.
This is a complex matter. We have given careful and sympathetic consideration to the problem, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has authorised me to say that the Government agree that the general legislation relating to certification of independence is unsatisfactory and needs tightening up. The existing provisions result in certificates being granted in circumstances where there is a risk of their being used to upset stable collective bargaining arrangements and to create damaging inter-union disputes.
Accordingly, we intend to take action at the earliest opportunity in response to this unsatisfactory situation by tightening the arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be consulting the main interested organisations, including the TUC and ACAS, about the form such action might properly take. I have informed the Chairmen of the two Organising Committees of the Government's intention, which affects them as well as other employers, and I shall invite them, like other employers, to take it into account in their own dealings with staff associations in their industries.
In view of the Government's intention to take action on this general basis, we did not feel it right to accept Amendment No. 329, and I am sure that my hon. Friends, in the light of what I have said, will understand why.

Mr. Heseltine: The Secretary of State is telling the House that once more the freedom of individual employees to decide how they want to be represented is to be curtailed in favour of a centralised system negotiated without any consultation by the TUC. The Secretary of State is saying that if people play the game Labour's way they can go on playing but that any other way will be legislated out of existence.

Mr. Varley: That is an exaggeration of what I said, typical of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study what

I said. The general legislation relating to certification of independence is unsatisfactory and needs tightening up. The Government accept that and will take steps to do it in consultation with the organisations concerned.
Public ownership of these two industries is needed if we are to have a coherent strategy for them. Public ownership will bring about the necessary structural change and will improve public accountability and the quality of decisions in important areas of the United Kingdom economy.

I commend the Bill to the House.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Heseltine: After a timetable motion, it is customary not to spend a great deal of time on the Third Reading debate, so I shall be brief in the way that the Secretary of State has been brief.
I hope that, like the Secretary of State, I can trespass on your good will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say a personal word of thanks to those of my colleagues who have borne such a remarkable load in opposing the Bill. It has been the longest Committee stage and the most protracted opposition to any Bill in the history of Parliament. That is an indication of our determination to use every constitutional means at our disposal to prevent the Bill reaching the statute book.
I single out particularly, conscious that it is an invidious distinction, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who played a conspicuous part in Committee. While we have not agreed with a great deal of what the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee, we have never disagreed with the way in which they said it, apart from one or two occasional lapses such as happen in any Committee. I utter a word of congratulation to the Secretary of State, who had the foresight and wisdom to entrust the Committee proceedings to the Minister of State and thus avoid for himself the 58 sittings.
The speech made by the Secretary of State is typical of speeches made by every Labour Minister on moving the Second Reading or Third Reading of Bills to nationalise industry after industry. Exactly the same words are to be found enshrined in the Hansard record of those occasions—the need for public accountability and a more rational planning


mechanism, the need to encourage democracy in industry and so on. In reality, everyone who has taken an interest in the nationalised industrial sector of the British economy is all too well aware of the fine intentions that never work out in practice.
There is no doubt that the present problems of the nationalised industrial sector are among the most severe facing our managerial and industrial economy. We have not found a method of giving it the clear sense of purpose that is required. That is because the very generalities with which the statutes are built preclude managements from knowing those things that are expected of them. The removal of any of the constraints on free enterprise activity in commercial terms, or in financial disciplines, have meant inevitable recourse to the taxpayer on an ever-increasing scale. That has been the reality, and totally absent from it has been any progress or any sense of natural planning worthy of the name.
In industry after industry there has been a sense of drift, punctuated only by improvisation by various Governments who have usually been about to be overwhelmed by crises in the industries themselves. I accept that the price control impost of 1972 is an example of the political activity to which all Governments have been forced in one way or another, and it has undoubtedly been harmful to the nationalised industries. The conclusion that we should draw is that industry should be kept at arm's length from politicians so that such a situation is far harder to bring about.
I had not anticipated—I doubt whether anyone else in the House had—that the Secretary of State would seek to use Third Reading to make an announcement about the curtailment of staff associations. All of us who are involved in industry politically have spent much time speaking to representatives of trade unions and staff associations. There is no doubt that in the aerospace industry many thousands of workers—in some cases the majority of employees in a company—have decided voluntarily to join staff associations. They have done so as a matter of choice, and that choice has been exercised freely. Individual citizens have felt that staff associations can meet their legitimate aspirations

more effectively than a trade union in the conventional sense.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman has referred to staff associations and to people joining them freely. He has suggested that they are not dominated by employers. Will he explain why the rules of the British Aerospace Staff Association were drawn up by a Mr. Mitchell, who is the executive director of Hawker Siddeley? He was not only the first secretary but the first chairman. The association's head-quarters are situated at Hawker Siddeley, Kingston. Will the hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. Heseltine: The important matter is that there is legislation to govern the registration of staff associations. In fact, several associations have complied with the existing legislation, which is designed specifically to ensure that they are not dominated by management and that they are genuinely independent. Under that legislation, some associations have been able to satisfy those who question whether they are genuinely independent. Therefore, they have begun to establish for themselves a real presence in terms of being representative of the people in the industry. The result has been complaints by unions—for example, the union of which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) is a member and, I assume, an active recruiter—that the associations are rivalling the activities of the unions. Pressure has been brought to bear on the Government that the law should be changed to preclude the right to opt for staff associations.
That is what is happening. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has said tonight. That is capitulation of the worst sort to outside union pressure. We are not dealing with opposition to trade unionism, but it is unquestionable in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself that people should be allowed to choose the organisations that shall represent them. It is intolerable, when they opt for staff associations, that the power of the trade union establishment should be brought to bear on this weak Government to obilterate their legal rights to behave in that way. That is what the Secretary of State has done from that Dispatch Box tonight.
I should like to place on record the five reasons why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will vote against the Bill tonight.
First, its very existence over the last three years has caused immeasurable harm to the two industries principally concerned. I have listened to the Secretary of State talk about the need to end uncertainty. It is curious why the ending of uncertainty should be entirely at his timing. The right hon. Gentleman was happy to create the uncertainty three years ago; to introduce the Bill in the last Session of Parliament and then not to proceed with it, but to allow the uncertainty to remain; to proceed with the Bill at a most leisurely pace; and, at the very end of this three-year process, to argue that there is a need to end uncertainty.
As the Labour Party has created the uncertainty, not only in these two industries but in industry after industry that it has added to its shopping list as soon as an industry comes off the top and passes into public ownership, I should have thought that "uncertainty" was hardly the word that the Secretary of State would want to use to describe his preoccupation.
The fact that uncertainty is damaging was proved beyond peradventure in the deal that was done with Marathon, because the precise need for that deal was to ensure that there was no uncertainty hanging over that company. The thing that characterised Marathon was that it was an overseas company which had the right not to come to this country. In orde to ensure that it did not exercise that right, the Labour Party in opposition, was prepared to do a deal to remove the uncertainty, in spirit, by turning this measure into a Hybrid Bill.
I believe that it is arguable and demonstrable that the uncertainty that was clear in the case of Marathon, and was therefore removed, existed with the other 43 companies, listed in the schedule, which have acted in the way that companies act when faced with uncertainty —namely, to hold back on their decisions and to cut back on their investment programmes, to the incalculable harm of the companies and industries and the employees within them. I believe that that is what has happened and that it

is the total responsibility of the Labour Party.

Mr. John Evans: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I shall be coming to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) at the end of my second point. I shall give way to him at that point, because he happens to be enshrined in my notes.
The second reason why I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Bill is that it will impose a framework on the industries least suitable to cope with the genuine problems that exist.
There is no disagreement in this House that there are genuine problems facing both industries. They are problems of rationalisation of the structure, of work load, of redundancy and of how Britain is to be competitive in two internationally oriented industries. They are all genuine problems. I think that we should serve the country and this House a great deal better if we spent time discussing how do deal with those problems rather than whether the industries would be better served by moving into the hands of the State. Whenever an industry has moved into the hands of the State, any solution to the kind of problems that I have listed has been prejudiced.
There is a curious and sad relationship here to the fact that only a fortnight ago the Secretary of State for Industry told the House, once again, that he was delaying the investment programme for the steel industry. That was not for the first time, because only a few months ago the right hon. Gentleman announced a similar delay. The Labour Party, again in opposition, announced a total review because it was electorally convenient, and that had an obvious effect on the investment programme.
The consequence is that the British Steel Corporation is now sadly behind. It is nothing like competitive by international standards. When the economy turns up—if it ever does under this Government—we shall find that we are short of the steel that we require at the prices at which it can be bought internationally. That will be the fault of the Labour Party which created the uncertainty. It now intends to do it to two more industries. In the process of doing it, it is building up an expectation among the workers in those industries


that simply by moving from the private to the public sector there will be a sort of cosy option. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes.
Let us now come to the hon. Member for Newton, who this afternoon was saying, not for the first time, that once we have public ownership we will be able to share the orders. He implied that there would be a greater spread of opportunity as though some divine oracle from Whitehall will allocate the international customers' orders regardless of whether they want to come. It will be a question of where the votes lie and where unemployment is heaviest. It will have nothing to do with where the yards are most efficient, where costs are lowest and productivity is greatest. The hon. Member for Newton and his Friends below the Gangway will say "It is my turn next. I do not care about the viability of those industries as long as I get work at any price, with taxpayers' support, in my constituency."

Mr. John Evans: The hon. Member badly quoted me. If the day ever dawns when we build a ship in the Newton constituency it will be the most peculiar ship anyone has ever seen because Newton happens to be 25 miles from the sea. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will be a hybrid ship."] It certainly will be a hybrid ship.
The hon. Gentleman alleged that the Government's proposals were, in effect, holding back the forward plans of the industry. Can he give one firm example of where any plans, proposals or suggestions in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry have been held back since the Government introduced their original proposals? Will he also take on board that the major problem in the British shipbuilding and ship repair industry since the war has been an almost complete lack of investment in it?

Mr. Heseltine: I hope I am not misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman by suggesting that he was involved in the shipbuilding industry. I listened to him yesterday explaining that he worked for seven companies in two years, and I assumed that he also lived among the people with whom he worked. I did not realise that he left the areas of shipbuilding behind him in the course of those years.
I have no wish to run away from the hon. Gentleman's question, but how does

he honestly expect 43 companies, which are now trying to face up to getting from the Government a reasonable price for the assets which are being expropriated, to lay on the line the decision which they are or are not taking? If he cannot read from the precedent of Marathon—which would not have invested a penny piece if it had not been exempted from nationalisation—the effect that it might have had on the rest of the industries, he has not begun to understand.
Why was it that the former Prime Minister constantly said that there must be a clear divide between the public and private sectors? Was it not because he wanted to ensure that the private sector could invest with confidence? That was what it was all about. I realise that Labour Members do not believe in the argument about encouraging success. I realise that that is the fundamental dilemma which divides the Labour Party. Do not Labour Members understand that this will lead to a totally Marxist-dominated State in which every decision is taken by the State and every resource is allocated by the State, so that we get investment where the politicians want it? The only alternative that the Government can pursue is profits and a return on investment. That is the only alternative within which a private sector economy can work.
The Secretary of State for Industry told us that what he is actually after is to get a single rationalised organisation within the aerospace industry as though this is something new. I have told him, and it is publicly known, that in 1973 agreement in principle had already been reached by the two major airframe manufacturers in this country to bring about precisely the rationalisation which today the right hon. Gentleman says he is still after. It was a voluntary agreement at no cost at all to the taxpayer, because they were prepared to discuss how the companies could be restructured within the private sector. What has happened, therefore, is that because it did not suit the dogma of the Labour Party the rationalisation has been delayed for three years. Secondly, it is being achieved at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayers money to do what could have been done two or three years ago on a voluntary basis.

Mr. John Evans: I am Chairman of the Regional Policy and Transport Committee of the European Assembly. We have just had a document placed before us, produced by the EEC Commission, on a proposal for the aeronautical sector of the Community. Will the hon. Gentleman read that document, which makes clear that the aeronautical industry in Europe has been an almost complete disaster since the end of the war? The Commission's proposal is that the whole industry within the nine member countries be taken over by the Commission. That is hardly a success story.

Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted to hear that on the Labour Benches there is a flicker of interest in the European movement. Curiously enough, in 1973 I not only succeeded in obtaining agreement in principle to the idea of rationalisation but started the first intergovernmental discussions on how we could achieve a European policy for the European aircraft industry. When the Labour Party came to power, it slammed the door on those discussions because they did not suit its referendum posture. There has been delay not only in rationalisation but in European terms while the Government have reluctantly come to the conclusion that an Organising Committee chosen from people outside the industry should take over the responsibility from people who have spent their life in the industry.
When we hear from Labour Members about the Europeanisation of the industry, I remind them that the Minister of State is now pleading with the French to allow Hawker Siddeley back into the Airbus project that the Labour Government cancelled in the late 1960s because the Airbus did not meet the European problems of the Labour movement at the time. There is now another total turnabout by the Government on the policy they created in the late 1960s. I welcome the new faith that the hon. Member for Newton shows in the European movement. It is a tragedy that it took Labour Members years to get round to it.
The third reason why we shall oppose the Bill is that it has been sold in both industries as a means of creating or preserving jobs. One understands the argument. The impression is given by Labour Members at constituency level

that once the taxpayer owns the industry there will be a fund of taxpayers' resources to maintain people in it, regardless of the industry's work flow. That is the impression given in the steel review. It is the impression that Labour Members give in every speech they make about the problem.
That creates a wholly illusory atmosphere about the real industrial dilemma which we face. We must find a way to sell products that people will buy at a price they will pay. The longer we go on suggesting that public ownership is a way to achieve that, the longer we shall be simply building up expectations which have never been fulfilled and which the Government now do not even have the money to fulfil.

Mrs. Helene Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that aircraft workers in my constituency are not that stupid and are fully aware that they must make planes that people will buy if they are to keep their jobs? They are equally aware that under private enterprise they do not have a chance of continuing in employment as civil airframe workers, and that it is only with Government funding—if and when they get it—that they will have that chance.

Mr. Heseltine: As I negotiated with Hawker Siddeley the HS146, the first civil project to be negotiated in this country for 10 years, despite the fact that for most of that period a Labour Government were in power, I am not prepared to take that from the hon. Lady. Government procurement is involved in all the high-technology industries across the world. That will always be the case. The question we must ask ourselves is why, alone among the free world countries, we believe that industrial strength can be developed by public ownership, even where there is Government procurement behind it, which no other advanced country of our sort has chosen as a means of conducting its industrial economy.
That leads to the conclusion which constantly recurs in the debate—and the only reason why one comes to that conclusion is that there is a group of people in the Labour Party who are interested only in political solutions. They are not interested in industrial solutions. Every


time they examine an industrial situation, they come up with the identical solution—that the problems can be solved only by nationalisation. But in practice, as the people of this country understand more and more clearly, nationalisation has not only failed to solve those problems but has usually aggravated them.
My final reason for opposing the Bill is that we are spending £300 million to compensate shareholders to persuade them to leave an industry which the vast majority of them have no wish to leave. We are putting up public money to satisfy the appetite of the Labour Party for nationalisation. As a result, we are keeping interest rates in Britain higher than they are in competing economies and, therefore, we are destroying investment throughout the private sector and consequently destroying the very jobs that the Government claim to have so much at heart.
As long as public expenditure policies remain as they are, we shall have levels of unemployment that are too high. It is a hollow mockery for the Government to talk of a clear divide between the public and private sectors. By that they mean that one can have a resting point policy while we digest a little more of the private sector. The moment that we have digested those bits that are the subject of current legislation, we shall move on with hungry progress to take over other industries such as banks, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, the construction industries and the various industries associated with agricultural machinery and equipment which have been listed by the Government for acquisition. There is no such thing as a clear divide. The only issue is how fast one moves down the appalling road which the Government have decided to take.
We shall vote against the Bill tonight and we shall continue to resist nationalisation with all our constitutional might. If the Bill reaches the statute book, hon. Members should have no doubt that when we come to power we shall return these industries to the private sector as fast as possible.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: This measure was contained in the Labour Party manifestos of 1974 and it can therefore be said that the Government

are carrying through a policy that was a commitment to the electorate. In view of that, hon. Members on the Government side can only welcome the opportunities that are provided by the measure.
I attended about 50 sittings of the Committee on the Bill. As is their wont, Opposition Members represented their class interest as effectively as they could, Their role as representatives of big business has been to keep these industries in private hands for private profit. At no time have they been interested in the social aspects of public ownership. They have made references to the work force, but those references were invariably based on their usual approach to labour as a commodity that is bought, used and set on one side when no longer required at the will of the owners, or managers acting on behalf of the owners.
Because of that approach, Opposition Members found it impossible to accept the concept of industrial democracy. The Opposition do not wish to accept the concept that the right of management to manage should be challenged. The proposals for industrial democracy rightly challenge that concept. If the workers in an industry that is being taken into public ownership are to respond to a variety of challenges, their loyalty will be harnessed only if they become involved in the decision making in publicly-owned industry. Anything short of that means that we shall attempt to do what private enterprise has woefully failed to do over the years, namely, to call for loyalty and then to proceed to exploit those workers.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) referred yesterday to the talks he had had with shop stewards at Warton. When the Committee stage of this Bill began, I set up a series of meetings, with shop stewards at the BAC works at Warton, during which consultations took place over the amendments that were felt to be necessary to clarify industrial democracy and a host of other problems. On some occasions the shop stewards came to the House and meetings took place here; on other occasions we met the representatives on their home ground. At no time was any opposition to the Government's plans put forward by those shop stewards.
In those meetings the subject of job security was rightly raised on many


occasions. The question of involvement in decision making was also canvassed. Despite the efforts of the Opposition to delay the Bill's passage, the Government in the last few days have taken steps to ensure the industrial progress in this sphere that is required by workers.
I was appalled to hear the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) say that the compensation paid to the owners of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries was inadequate, in view of the sacrifices made by those owners.

Mr. Heseltine: rose—

Mr. Thorne: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He was allowed to make his speech and I hope that I shall be allowed to make mine. It is on this question of compensation that I am being interrupted. In the Standing Committee and again on the Floor of the House today, the Minister of State gave us some extremely interesting figures about public money ploughed into the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in recent years.
Some of us believe that when public money has been given to companies in the sort of situation that has obtained in recent years, when the question of paying compensation arises the contribution already made from public funds should be taken into account. Unfortunately, the Government have not proceeded along that path, but I would not wish to suggest in any way that we should not vote for the Third Reading because of that.
Clearly, it is my intention—and it is the desire of the aircraft workers in my constituency—to support the Third Reading, and I do it wholeheartedly.
The problem of compensation has been raised in a perfectly bare-faced way by the Opposition, as if in some way the shareholders were being sold short, when in my view it is the public generally who have contributed to these industries and have been sold short.
I am glad that we have now reached the Third Reading of the Bill. I hope that in a very short time we shall be welcoming vesting day, in order that we may build two industries in the interests of the British people.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: This is a sad night for a proud industry, the British aircraft industry. The Minister of State must know in his heart that it is, and so should the Minister who opened the debate.
Those hon. Members who speak about the benefits that will accrue to this industry are simply not in touch with what the industry is like on the shop floor, in design offices or in the laboratories. They do not know the contribution that the industry has made to the wealth of this country, or the contribution it has made to the defence of this country. We hear only about the handouts given to the industry, when without that industry we should not be properly defended or employed today. The wealth of this country would be less by £500 million each year in exports.
Tonight we have listened to the Minister saying that he is frightened of the designers and the laboratory technicians who have formed themselves into staff associations to protect their own jobs. This shows the way in which the Labour Government have become frightened of the people of this country. The Government ought to be ashamed of what they are trying to force through the House tonight by the guillotine. Fewer than one in five of the people in this country want more nationalisation. We shall have a steamroller going through the Lobbies in the cause of Socialism. I wish the Minister of State were present while I read out what he said at the second of the 58 sessions we had in Committee. He said he wanted it to go forth from the Standing Committee
that we are nationalising these two industries in order to further Socialism in this country."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16th December 1975; c. 98.]
He said nothing about jobs or wealth, or the wellbeing of the people of this country; he spoke only about Socialism.
In 1904, on what George Bernard Shaw described as a wet Saturday afternoon in the football season, Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution was devised—the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Seventy-two years later we are still bogged down with the stupidity of


Socialism. It cannot move without nationalising. It does not care about people, let alone the workers in an industry that it is about to nationalise.
We have been told over and over again that nationalisation will save jobs. Labour Members know that nationalisation never saves jobs. The whole history of the nationalisation of coal, steel, the Post Office and the railways has been one of lost jobs.
The aircraft industry workers, if they do not know it already, ought to be told tonight that they will lose jobs. Whole factories will be closed. For two years the Government have done nothing to protect the interests of the aircraft industry. They have also failed to carry out their duty under the Civil Aviation Act 1949, under which it was the Minister's task to encourage measures for the development of civil aviation, and for the design, development and production of civil aircraft. That duty is abolished under this Bill. There is a limitation on the amount of money that the workers may expect to receive as help from a Government whom they are supposed to support. The Minister must know that the workers do not support the Government. I wish that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) were still in the Chamber. He knows the result of the shop floor ballot at Warton. The workers said that they did not want nationalisation.
Let us consider the question of industrial democracy. It is a load of twaddle, although that may be an unparliamentary word. "Industrial democracy" is a meaningless phrase. It takes away people's right to be heard. As a result of the setting up of a panoply of bureaucracy inside the proposed corporations, the workers will not be heard. They are never heard in any nationalised industry. Nor are the customers allowed to be heard. We do not believe that this nationalisation will be different, although the Minister of State told us when he introduced the Bill that this nationalisation would be different.
Under the Bill the sum of £250 million will be allowed for new projects. That sum is enough for one new project these days. The Minister did not have to wait two years to bring the Bill forward; he could have done the work that was required before.
The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) knows how much the workers on the shop floor at Hatfield need help. The Minister could have provided that help under the 1949 Act. What will happen? This Bill limits the amount of assistance that a Socialist Government will be able to give to the workers. What will be the result? Jobs will be lost. That will be the effect of this measure on the people who create enormous wealth. They do not wish to make vacuum cleaners, they want to work in the aircraft industry, where they know that their skills are wanted. The Government should lead this aircraft industry with vigour. We should be standing up against the French and the Germans. The Minister of State should not be obliged to go to France to talk about European or French projects.
This leads us to the question: which factories will close? Within two or three years the words "Brough", "Chadderton", "Woodford", "Hurn", "Weybridge" and "Fitton" will be heard in the House, when we discuss the question of those workers going to the wall. The guilty men of the Government will have driven them there, as a result of the failure of the Government in the past two years. The Minister of State may look round but he will not find many Government supporters present. It is amazing how many Government supporters failed to speak in Committee on behalf of the workers, or have failed to support the Minister tonight. One Government supporter never spoke in Committee. That is not the way in which to look after the interests of workers.
I ask the Minister and his cohort on the Front Bench why they do not have the guts to tell the truth. They have got this industry into trouble. They have told the workers that nationalisation will get them out of it. They know that that is not so. Why have the Government not got the guts to tell these chaps that they will be in the dole queues faster than they ever believed?
The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield knows that there are 19 Tridents left on the Hatfield order book. The Hawker Siddeley 146 cannot be made at Hatfield, nor may the BAC X11 be made at Weybridge. When nationalisation takes place, the workers' jobs in factories will be weighed in the balance.


That is the way in which the Government will treat those who voted for them. We hear that the workers voted for the Government. It is scandalous that the workers should be used as the tools of Socialism.
I come to the question that seems to rile Socialist Members; it is the magic word "money". The compensation is poor. After 30 per cent. capital gains tax, £70 will be left from every £100 paid in compensation. There will be a further 30 per cent. reduction. The investors will receive £49 for every £100 paid in compensation. In today's money, that will be worth only £25 compared with the 1973–74 valuation. Those who invested in those industries will receive £1 for every £4 they saved and invested. That may sound satisfactory to Socialist Members who do not care about people's savings. I am worried about where the money will come from with which to nationalise the industry.
We have never heard from the Minister—because he dare not tell us—how much this will cost. I doubt whether he is going to get the money. This is the worst and crudest cut of all. It has been estimated that £400 million will be needed to buy these industries, and the Minister knows that we shall need about the same amount of working capital to keep them going. About £800 million must be found.
Last week, Socialist Members trooped through the Lobbies to support cuts of £1.000 million in borrowed money in order that they should be able to afford the nationalisation of the British aerospace and shipbuilding industries. They made the choice; they decided that they wanted nationalisation in preference to schools, roads, hospitals and better pensions. That sword hangs over them, and the next election will find it dropping hard upon the heads of many hon. Members on the Government Benches who believe that Socialism will save their seats. It will not.
The whole story has been one of robbery with violence. We have had the robbery of people's savings and, I regret to say, as one who served his apprenticeship on the shop floor, the robbery of the livelihoods and futures of many good men and women with whom I was proud to work.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I hope that the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) will forgive me if I do not follow his observations except to put him right on one point: we have not yet trooped through the Lobby—for or against—on the Government's economies. That comes on Monday.
I wish instead to concentrate on the speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was his usual emotional and exaggerated self. His inability to control himself in the House is now well established. The hon. Gentleman tends, as did Hitler and as does the editor of The Times, to use the expression "Marxism" as a term of abuse. If he thinks that this is a Marxist Bill or Bolshevism run mad, he cannot be living in the real world. I am a democratic Socialist and I regard this measure as a necessary extra instalment of public ownership within the context of a mixed economy.
The Conservative Party has been converted to support of a mixed economy. In that case it means that when a Labour Government are in power the mixture will be thickened with a little more public ownership, which will be restrained when the Conservatives are in power. If the Conservatives truly believe in a mixed economy, its present objection to a Labour Government extending public ownership is going beyond the bounds of political reality. What do they expect?
I wish to refer to the aircraft industry. The nationalisation of this industry is almost inevitable. Vast sums of public money are needed to support advanced technologies. It is increasingly difficult to get the money from private sources. Other reasons for nationalisation include the dependence of the industry on State orders and the need for further structural rationalisation—which is not denied by the Opposition. The engine side of the industry has already collapsed into nationalisation. Another reason, which I hope will not shock Opposition Members, is the superior strength and wishes of the trade union movement, as against the management side, in the industry. For a very long time the relative strength was the other way round.
Conservative Members must understand that the historical balance of power has shifted. They must take that into


account. At heart they know this. They understand that, in the end, this kind of legislation is inevitable. If a Conservative Government come to power in the near or distant future, I doubt whether they will denationalise the industry, despite what the hon. Member for Henley said. If they attempt it, they will not then have the support of the management in the industry. They had years in which they could have denationalised the other industries which had come into public ownership. They have had to accept that, once made, a change of this depth continues.
The hon. Member said that Labour Members had sold this legislation to the workers by promising jobs where there was no economic basis for them. That is not true. Together with my colleagues from Bristol, I often visit BAC and we discuss in a realistic way at all times the employment situation. Of course, the change of ownership in itself will not create jobs. The creation of jobs depends on market opportunities, on skilled management and on the support of the workers in improving efficiency.
Once this measure goes on to the statute book and the Organising Committee takes over, it will be necessary to climb down from the heights to the plain. As a superannuated revolutionary once said, "I discovered after the revolution that I still had to do the washing up". This is the case in the aircraft industry. It is not that we do not have a very good aircraft industry—it is excellent—but there are world-wide difficulties in finding markets which the workers well understand.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend refer to the importance of the MRCA. I hope that there will be no question, whatever may be said in some sections of my party, of cancelling that necessary project for the defence of the country. But, apart from the fairly busy military side, on the civil side there are not many good prospects at present of any new wholly British aeroplane, leaving the Concorde out of account. I believe that to be a fact. We may get a greater share in the Airbus, the joint European project. I hope that we shall, and that we shall press that very hard with the French and the Germans.
The employment situation in the aircraft industry is undoubtedly worrying to

all those who are concerned with its future. I say that without any criticism of the present management. At BAC, I know most of them very well. But the threat of nationalisation cannot be blamed for the present problems of the aircraft industry. Those difficulties have arisen under the present ownership. The hope is that the new people coming in—what might be described as a new management wave—will give a leadership that will be different and be better able to cope with difficulties.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Palmer: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am pressed for time, and I am coming to the end of my remarks in any event.
We have to change things for the better, not simply as a management and sales effort, important though that is, but as a joint effort by all those who work in the enterprise, on the basis of employee participation and full trade union opportunities. The hon. Member for Henley referred in a disparaging way in this connection to the TUC. Does he not understand that in this country TUC affiliation is the hallmark of genuine trade unionism? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It certainly is, and within the TUC, as my hon. Friends know, there are plenty of unions affiliated to the TUC which are available in the aircraft industry to organise management employees to the very highest level. There is no reason at all for managers at any level to go outside TUC-affiliated unions, and these are by definition all genuine unions.
This industry has had a very great past it has a good present and I believe that we can hope for an excellent future for it. I hope that the Organising Committee in dealing with rationalisation will make haste slowly, because a tremendous amount of damage can be done in the first few years through rationalisation being too swift. But I wish this industry well, as I know my constituents do. The House should give the Bill its Third Reading.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: This Bill is very largely a measure of industrial archaeology for the


preservation of manufacturing monuments. If it eventually becomes law, after an initial and very painful period of slimming down—an ordeal the Government have yet to face, if they are still the Government when the Bill is enacted —these two great industries, to the country's great loss, will join Stonehenge, York Minster, Fountain Abbey and Barnsley Town Hall as sacred objects which must be shored up and patched up for ever, regardless of their inutility. This disaster is compounded by the extraordinary difficulty that the Government have found in obtaining curators for these potential monuments. After a tremendously long seach some very anomalous characters have been produced.
The origin of this unfortunate essay in expensive conservation, like so many national disasters, lies in the period of the last Conservative Administration, when the two industries made themselves enormously vulnerable. Not all the units, but many, in both industries, made themselves vulnerable to the perfectly understandable charge that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money should not be sunk in industries of this kind without a large measure of public control. If only the Conservative "gravy train" had not been so lengthy and well stocked, and had not trundled around all the aviation and shipbuilding areas in a desperate search for votes, those industries would not have been so vulnerable to the attack of the nationalisers.
The result will be that for years to come, unless some extraordinary freak result arises under present electoral system, or there is a change in it, capital will be locked up in these industries far in excess of what they should be using—and, far more serious human lives, human skill, diligence and industry, will be locked up likewise. This is the great disaster of nationalisation—that it concentrates national resources in the wrong places, ill-adapted to Britain's modern industrial rôle.
The Bill should not leave this place without some other minor comments. In the first place, it should have been in the form of at least two quite separate Bills. The troubles in Standing Committee and the extraordinarily tedious length of the proceedings were due almost entirely to the intolerable confusion caused by the

fact that we were leaping from an industry that is rather ancient in its modes and is situated in certain areas of the country to an industry that is highly technological and modern, concentrated in quite different areas of the country.
We in the Liberal Party believe that Bills to nationalise manufacturing industries should all be treated as hybrid Bills from the start, so that petitioners can be heard and the legislation can be considered properly.
The worst charge that we can level against the Bill is that it applies to manufacturing industries of great sophistication, which are largely dependent on export orders, the same old dreary type of nationalised structure used for public service industries that exploit the consumer with their monopoly powers. One cannot treat foreign customers with the same overriding contempt as that with which the Post Office and the Gas Board treat their customers when they want to make a profit in order to please their political masters.
There are many follies that currently contribute to our enormously swollen foreign borrowing requirements. This Bill is one of the greatest follies of all.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Many of us in the Scottish National Party have very severe doubts about whether the Bill will protect jobs. The OECD forecast is that the capacity for shipbuilding in Western industrial countries should be reduced by about 30 per cent., and the Government are entering tripartite talks in order to get a policy in which the shipbuilding industry will be slimmed down. Therefore, it is clear why we have doubts about this matter.
The Bill seeks to deal with the shipbuilding and aircraft industries in Scotland as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be very strange indeed if this House were to allow any of these vital industries to be taken over by other countries and taken outside the control of those who live in the United Kingdom, yet that is what the Government are proposing in relation to these industries in Scotland. In the Bill there is no form of Scottish control at all. At best we have the sop of decentralisation and the recognition that there


should be some Scottish interest in the organisation. It will be very difficult indeed for the Government to marry these decentralisation proposals of giving power to the yards with a Scottish structure in British Shipbuilders.
The overall effect of the Bill will be to establish British Shipbuilders with its headquarters organisation in Merseyside. The right hon. Member for Sunderland North (Mr. Willey) believes that the headquarters will be on Merseyside. I do not know whether that is true, but certainly they will not be in Scotland.
Once again we will have the removal of vital Scottish industries outside Scottish control. It makes a mockery of the Government's proposals for devolution. How can they have devolution in terms of a Scottish Assembly when they take political control outside the country? The Government have missed the opportunity to bring in any effective form of Scottish control.
What about the Government's policies for shipbuilding? I made it clear on Second Reading that the United Kingdom has had no real effective policy for shipbuilding for the last 15 years. Only last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he would reduce the regional employment premium, and that will affect male jobs in the shipbuilding areas. He also intends to increase national insurance contributions. That, too, will have an effect on the shipbuilding areas, because most of the jobs in the companies are for men and this will be an extra burden which will have to be carried whether the Bill succeeds tonight or not.
Judging from what has been said by Sir Anthony Griffin and Mr. Graham Day, it seems that the individual units in the industry will be judged on their

merits. The development areas have benefited from the regional employment premium, and they in particular will lose. An additional load will have been placed on employment in these areas which did not exist before. The Bill is supposed to retain shipbuilding jobs, but the Government are placing additional difficulties on the cash flow of these industries.
I cannot see why the Secretary of State has allowed this to happen. He must go back to the Chancellor and explain that if this additional burden is to be placed on male jobs there will be a loss of employment for men. In the areas that I represent, as in Strathclyde, and in the North-East and the North-West of England, one of the prime needs is for more male jobs. The Government must make up their minds what they want to do.
We have the promise of rationalisation, but to Scottish hearts and Scottish minds rationalisation means redundancy. Already trade union shop stewards have been in touch with us in the SNP seeking our support to protect Scottish jobs, even under the nationalisation structure which the Government have in mind. They are also trying to get Labour Party support, but that is difficult to obtain when it comes to supporting jobs in the face of Government policy.
The Government have failed to take up their opportunity to provide for effective Scottish control. Once again they are proceeding with a nationalisation measure which will take opportunity and decision-making power away from Scotland. They will be placing the shipbuilding industry under the overall control of British Shipbuilders, which will be based on Merseyside, Teesside, Wear-side or some such place. That is unacceptable to the people of Scotland.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is mistaken if he thinks I believe that the headquarters of British Shipbuilders will be on Merseyside. I believe they will be on the North-East Coast.
We spent a long time in Standing Committee, but for once I think that it was time profitably spent. The Bill contains three entirely new features. It provides for industrial democracy, and that it not unimportant. Secondly, it provides for decentralisation. In the February 1974 General Election I told the men in the yards at Sunderland that we would have centralised bureaucratic nationalisation over my dead body, and I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for affording me the opportunity to remain alive. The Bill contains decentralisation based upon something which I also argued in Standing Committee—profit centres. That is another important change in our approach to nationalisation.
Thirdly, we have moved some way from the Morrisonian concept of nationalisation. We have brought in the concepts that we were discussing last night. The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to unemployment and regional policy, and these are dealt with by the Bill. My right hon. Friend mentioned the certificate of independence. This is important to those who have made representations to me. Legislation on industrial democracy is expected. If agreement is reached before the Bill passes through all its stages in another place, I hope that provision will be made in it for these two industries.
Reference has been made to management under nationalisation. Sunderland Shipbuilders are nationalised. The yard was profitable, but Court Line got into difficulty and it was nationalised. There is the same management now as there was before. It is showing enterprise and fighting for orders.
The largest capital investment has been in Austin and Pickersgill—£35 million. That investment was after the election of the Labour Government. The firm applied for help to the previous Conservative Government but it received aid from the Labour Government. All

this has been done under the shadow of nationalisation. It has made no difference. That was mixed investment. The money could be raised only if the Government put in £9½ million. During the negotiations, Austin and Pickers-gill offered the Government 25 per cent. of its equity with no condition about nationalisation, but the Government provided the loan without taking 25 per cent. of the equity.
The returns have just come in and they show that, in terms of compensated tons, new orders taken in United Kingdom yards during the first six months of 1976 were three times as much as for the whole of 1975—more than four times as much in terms of gross registered tons. That shows that the threat of nationalisation has not prejudiced the yards. It is untrue to say that the threat of nationalisation prevented orders being placed.
How does the shipbuilding industry fare? During the time we have been debating in Committee, the nationalised and private enterprise parts of the industry have been working hard and have had some return. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remembered the days when British shipbuilding yards produced one-quarter of world output. I have spoken in the House at a time when British shipbuilding accounted for more than half of world output.
Japan is cutting back its projected capacity by 20 per cent. Everyone in the industry knows that the present degree of nationalisation means that the whole industry must be nationalised.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why?

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Booz-Allen Report. I have read it and I have repeatedly referred to it. It was pointed out in that report—this projection was made several years ago—that next year one of our eight yards would be closed. That was realised by Austin and Pickersgill. If an industry is largely publicly controlled, that will very much affect the way in which it is treated. The private yard knows that in that situation it cannot survive, however profitable it may appear to be.
The shipbuilders I have spoken to are disturbed by the protracted discussions in the House. They are anxious to


have the matter settled in the interests of the industry. We should not be too doctrinaire. We must face realistically the difficulties that confront the industry—for example, Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd., Govan Shipbuilders Ltd., Harland and Wolff and Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd. We must realise that the industry is facing the most intense competition that has existed since the war. It is necessary to have a national structure within which to deal with it, and that is what we are providing today.
I hope that the Bill will afford the industry the opportunity that it needs so that we need not talk about its being a national monument. The speech which included that phrase should be circulated to the Sunderland Liberal Party. It is interesting that there are Members in the House who talk about one of our basic industries being a national monument. It is a disgrace to say such things. There is a great ability in the industry. There are those within it who have fought very hard for it. There are workers within it who have worked hard and who are second to none in many skills. It is their livelihoods for which we are fighting. By agreeing to a Third Reading, we shall at any rate be giving them a chance.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: There is little left to say at the end of the Bill's prolonged passage. I suppose the best thing that can be said is that at least and at last we know the worst—namely, that these great industries are being taken into nationalisation. They are to be brought under one impersonal and remote form of management. They are to be brought within a system which has not worked for any other industry and which shows no signs of working for these industries.
To do the Secretary of State credit, I did not think that he had his heart in the words that he read when making his speech this evening. It was a load of nonsense that bore no relationship to the real facts.
What will face these industries? The shipbuilding and aircraft industries have in them successful and unsuccessful companies. The successful ones make millions of pounds for our exports and

balance of payments while the unsuccessful ones offer many people employment. They will not all be brought under the same heading. There is no prospect of seeing any improvement in management. It is a tragedy that the only thing that can possibly result for those who now work in these industries is a struggle to outwit the worst effects of nationalisation.
I shall mention one of the smallest companies that is to be nationalised, because it is in my constituency—namely, Scottish Aviation Ltd. at Prestwick. It is a firm which, for the aviation industry, has a long history. For over 50 years it has been one of the pioneer companies in British aviation. It has had its good times and its bad times. It is worth remembering that the 10 years which ended in 1974 were the most successful years in the company's history. It is a small company that will form a very small part of a monster of a nationalised industry. It will take all the skill, devotion and courage of those who work: in it, manage it and represent it to ensure that it is not swallowed up and completely obliterated. I warn the Minister that I shall continue to fight hard for the company under nationalisation, regrettable though nationalisation may be. The company must continue and it must be protected.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has a nerve to come here and say what he did tonight, because some weeks ago the Scottish National Party had the opportunity to demonstrate positively that it was on the side of those who were against nationalising these industries. The SNP ran away from that opportunity in the most ignominious way. It was not by accident. It was because the Government realised that they would be in difficulty in that vote. What did they do? They brought in the frighteners, the heavy mob. Trade union representatives in Scotland went to see the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—they demanded to see them—and they put the screws on. But they did not need to do very much. They simply needed an interview, and the hon. Gentleman went back to his parliamentary colleagues to railroad them into deserting the Opposition on that vital night.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: rose—

Mr. Younger: On that vital night SNP Members gave the Government time to win the two by-elections that were pending. It is no use having the support of the SNP now. It will be welcome if it comes, but it is no longer of any use. The hon. Member for Dundee, East must know that he let down thousands of people who were looking to the nationalists to help us to defeat the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has let down those people, and they will not forget it.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I have been rather amused, because the hon. Gentleman said that if the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru had voted with the Opposition that evening the Opposition would have won and the Government would have been defeated. In fact, as he knows, for the second time running a Conservative Member was absent from the vote. I am suspicious that, whenever it comes to a major vote in which the Government might be defeated, there is always a Conservative Member absent. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that at the meeting we were asked to give our support for the protection of the jobs of the workers if nationalisation went ahead?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his go, and I am hoping to call one more Member before the winding-up speeches.

Mr. Younger: It is no use the hon. Gentleman hiding behind a technicality. The fact is that he let down the people who were looking to the SNP to help to defeat the Bill. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot get out of it that way.
The Bill will do nothing but harm to many people who work in highly successful industries. I wish that the Government would have the sense to recognise that fact and, even now, realise that the Bill can do nothing to help them.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not join in the argument between the official Tories and the tartan Tories. We had an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), but it was a speech that we had heard at least 10 times before.

I suggest that it was as daft on its tenth rendering as on its first.
The Conservative Party, now joined by the Liberal Party, has adopted scare tactics to pretend that public ownership of the shipbuilding industry will lead to unemployment. However, the whole House knows that the opposite is the truth. If the Bill had not been introduced, there would have been widespread bankruptcies among shipbuilding companies with consequent widespread unemployment among workers in the industry.
When I first read the Bill, there were a number of matters about which I was not happy. However, it has been greatly improved both in Committee and on Report. All the credit must go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and his junior Ministers.
I particularly welcome the amendments dealing with industrial democracy and decentralisation. I am also pleased with the assurances that have been given by Government Front Bench spokesmen and the Organising Committee, which is doing a very good job, that the units inside British Shipbuilders will have a great deal of local autonomy and that not all the decisions will be referred to headquarters.
I should like to make one critical comment. I hope that the Organising Committee will be allowed to choose the site for its headquarters wherever it thinks best for commercial reasons and that the Government will not be bound by any rash statement made by former Ministers.
I welcome the fact that the warship-building section of the shipbuilding industry is to remain in the Bill. There was an attempt earlier to take it out. What an absurd situation we should have had if the warship section had been taken out of the Bill and had remained outside public ownership.
I am one of those who believe very much that the three specialist warship yards of Yarrow, Vickers and Vosper Thornycroft are getting orders from the Ministry of Defence because they are the most efficient warship construction yards. What would have been the position had they been left out of the Bill? I think


there would have been every temptation for the Ministry of Defence in future years to place its naval shipbuilding orders with the yards that are in public ownership rather than those outside it.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that when he and I accompany the Minister of State on a visit to Vosper Thornycroft tomorrow one of the main issues the Company will wish to discuss with the Minister is the urgent need to get a contract for a Type 42 frigate. Would my hon. Friend venture an opinion as to whether the firm's chances of obtaining such a contract, either now or in the future, would be improved or worsened if it remained outside the British Shipbuilders Corporation?

Mr. Mitchell: In my opinion, its chances will be very much improved by being inside British Shipbuilders. As my hon. Friend well knows, he and I have continually pressed the Ministry of Defence to place defence orders at Vosper Thornycroft because it is one of the there most efficient shipbuilding yards in the country. If the rest of the industry was nationalised and that company remained outside, there would be a very great danger indeed that it would suffer and there would be a loss of jobs in those three specialist yards. The men in Yarrow, the men in Vickers and those in Vosper Thornycroft know that very well.

Mr. Viggers: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. There is a shortage of time and other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman made a speech earlier.
Because of the decline in world shipbuilding orders, the British shipbuilding industry faces a difficult time in the next few years. No one pretends that the path will be easy. I believe, however, that the Bill provides the best chance of survival for the British shipbuilding industry. Let us have no further delay.
The tactics of the Opposition in delaying the Bill have created uncertainty and caused all sorts of trouble. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) should read a speech made by the chairman of the organisation that the hon. Gentleman represents in this House.

The chairman said that the worst thing we could possibly have was continuing uncertainty, and he said that we should reach a decision one way of the other. The quicker the Bill gets on to the statute book, the better it will be for the British shipbuilding industry.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. John Cope: The Bill is a tragic one. It is also a bad Bill. We Conservatives have been criticised during the debates, yesterday and before, for speaking too much about compensation, arbitration, safeguarding and so on. But more than half the clauses in the Bill are about these matters. More than half the clauses in the Bill are about the act of nationalisation. Very little of the Bill is about the future of these two industries, and that is what matters to the country and to those who work in them.
When we looked at the details of the Bill in Committee, we saw that the provisions for accounts and audits, in which I take a special interest because of my professional expertise, are very sketchy indeed. They are much more flimsy than those provided for private companies in the various Companies Acts over the years. Similarly, the provisions about industrial democracy are extremely vague and are only a little less vague as a result of the amendments which have been made on Report.
It has been said that private industry has failed to introduce industrial democracy. But what about the nationalised industries? They, too, have failed to introduce industrial democracy—whatever that means—in the way that Labour Members want. If hon. Members on the Government side have brilliant ideas about introducing great new schemes into nationalised industries, let them put them into practice in the existing nationalised industries first instead of taking new industries into public ownership in order to experiment on them.
I return to the main point, that the Bill is not about the future of the industries. In spite of the debates, we still do not know what the Government will do with them. We have been able to pick up a few scraps of information here and there. A little piece of the jigsaw puzzle began to be filled in on Monday by the Minister of State, when


our local paper reported him at Yeovilton as once again holding out the idea that nationalisation was good for jobs and saying:
If we get more Concorde orders, then fine for Filton. If we don't, there is a possibility we will have to look at other projects when the industry is nationalised.
He tries all the time to imply that jobs are safe only if—or "when", as he puts it—the industry is nationalised. It is grossly misleading to my constituents and others involved.
The hon. Gentleman added that he hoped more work would come to Filton from the building of the MRCA. I hope that it does, as a result of orders for the Tornado which this Government and the Governments of other countries are to place. But I also hope that the Members representing Preston are satisfied that work should be transferred from there to Filton, and that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), is happy that even more of the jobs of his constituents and mine should depend on the defence budget. Many of them in Rolls-Royce in my constituency already depend on the MRCA, and they will depend on it in the future. Maybe more workers at Filton will depend on it.
We also picked up another piece of the jigsaw puzzle on the shipbuilding side, not from the Department of Industry but from the Secretary of State for Employment, who said in his constituency of Barrow-in-Furness that three yards were to have priority. One was the Vickers yard at Barrow. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) has taken that on board. He obviously hopes that his is another of the yards. We have not been told which are the other two yards. We have been told nothing else about the future of these two industries, in spite of the long debates on this ghastly Bill.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: As we come to what will be, one way or the other, the final stage of the Bill in this House, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for his kind words, which I reciprocate. I commend him for his drive and energy in leading the opposition to the Bill. I also particularly

thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) for the most energetic way in which he whipped us into order on a number of occasions, and I thank all my hon. Friends who supported us in the protracted consideration of this long Bill, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, we have fought by every constitutional means open to us.
I wish that I could say that the Government had opposed us in the same spirit and in the same way. The Committee stage and further consideration of the Bill will go down in parliamentary history as the longest ever. I hope that it will never be surpassed in the deviousness and sordid behind-the-scenes manoeuvres that have marked the succeeding stages of the Bill. These have gone on so long that many hon. Members may have forgotten some of the events leading to the Government's saving the Bill only by a broken pair on one occasion. They have dealt behind the scenes with certain other parties, and those parties probably now bitterly regret this. They must now realise how they have been hoodwinked at every stage.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) when he said that the Government were largely to blame for many of the problems. By any standards, the provisions of this measure should have been contained in two Bills. Having only one Bill led to difficulties at Second Reading and in Committee when we had to dodge from one industry to another. Many of the problems would have been avoided if the Government had recognised at the start that the Bill was hybrid. It must grieve the Secretary of State that we would have progressed faster if more thought had been given at the beginning to the way in which the measure was tackled.
I approach Third Reading and the end of our opposition—and we have fought as hard as we could—not in a spirit of anger but with a deep sadness. I sincerely believe that it will not help British industry. If I believed that it would help British industrial performance, if I believed that employment would be more secure or that it would help exports, I would consider the measure seriously. British industry


faces many problems and handicaps, and I believe that Clause 4 is one of the albatrosses which Britain sadly has to carry, to its cost. It is a relic of a previous industrial policy which is totally discredited, which the Government do not have the courage finally to repudiate and which still has to make its turgid and damaging progress.
The Government's solution is the least suitable to the genuine problems that these industries face. They are supremely international companies. The aircraft and shipbuilding industries cannot hope to survive unless they can attract a substantial amount of overseas business. They are not domestic service industries. They do not have a monopoly in their markets. They will live or die by service, quality and competitiveness. In that situation, does anyone seriously believe that putting them under the bureaucracy of national State ownership will solve any of their problems?
Yesterday I spoke of decentralisation and I challenged the Government to explain what is likely to happen to the marketing functions of these industries. I asked whether they were likely to remain separate. I asked what would happen to wage negotiations and whether they would be negotiated in the individual companies or at national level. I asked what would happen to the purchasing functions and pricing policies.
Inevitably, centralisation will occur. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said "Centralisation over my dead body." A former leader of his party used the same expression about grammar schools, and we have seen what has happened to them. I would not sell a life insurance policy to the right hon. Gentleman because of the speed with which I expect centralisation to happen. The Scottish nationalists and others have been grievously misled over the idea that there will be a separate Scottish Shipbuilders Corporation. Centralisation will undoubtedly come to pass.
There are many pious hopes in this regard. Indeed, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) said how splendid and how much improved the Bill was. But when the amendments are examined, it can be seen that they do not amount to a row of beans. All that the corporations have to say, within

the proper discharge of their functions, is "We are reporting to you within three months as required under the legislation, and we discover that we cannot decentralise this, that or the other function." In other words, the protection in the Bill will be destroyed at a stroke. So much for local determination. There will obviously be a move towards centralisation.
Furthermore, political considerations will come into play. It will be said "Where is the unemployment, where are the Labour marginal seats? Therefore, we consider that the orders will have to go to this or that yard". When a foreign customer is sent to a yard which he does not like and which falls down on the job, that will be the last time we see him.
It has been said by Labour Members "If the Bill does not go through, there will he unemployment in the yards ". Announcements have already been made in the House that 20,000 men will be affected by the present defence cuts. Indeed, it is estimated that in the next 10 years 11,000 of them, or more than half, will lose their jobs. So much for the protection of employment offered under nationalisation. Yet at the same time the Tribune Group advocates the cancellation of the MRCA Tornado. The Secretary of State for Defence has already made clear that such a step would mean the loss of 25,000 jobs in the industry and the virtual destruction of the British airframe industry.
Finally, there is the claim that these proposals will give protection to the industry and those who are employed in it.
While all this argument has been taking place, crucial time has been lost in terms of providing orders for shipyards. Equally, a great deal of time has been lost in negotiating with our European partners possible collaborative airspace projects. Perhaps if we had taken advantage of the two years that have been lost we would now have had a share of new projects. Now, however, those projects could be lost for ever.
On the horizon is the prospect that the Government will try to bring in similar proposals for the banks and the insurance companies. If the worst were to happen in that respect—and my colleagues and I are determined to prevent that happening—we might well face the situation in two years' time that we


are accused of delaying tactics that will damage the future of the banks and the insurance companies.
Against that background, and in the knowledge that the Bill will do nothing for these industries but damage and endanger employment, we shall oppose it with all our vigour.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Kaufman: Every right hon. and hon. Member knows that this House is about to make a momentous decision. Every vote cast in favour of the Third Reading of the Bill will be a vote to give hope and opportunity to the British aircraft industry and the British shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Every vote cast against the Bill—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was heard in an atmosphere of reasonable order. I hope that that situation will be allowed to continue.

Mr. Kaufman: Every vote cast against the Bill will be a vote in favour of the destruction of the civil airframe industry. Every vote cast against the Bill will be a vote in favour of the destruction of the merchant shipbuilding industry in this country.
The result of the lack of initiative of the aircraft industry under private ownership is that not a single new significant project has been launched by it during the whole of this decade. The only new project has been the SD330, launched by the nationalised Short Brothers in Northern Ireland, whose Unionist Members plan tonight to vote to deny the benefits of public ownership to the rest of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The Government have more confidence in the aircraft industry than its private owners, and I have evidence of this for the House.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: Earlier this year the Civil Aircraft Division of the British Aircraft Corporation requested an extension of the Government's underwriting of the BAC111 production line which was announced to Parliament in June 1975. This request was subsequently

supported by the Organising Committee for British Aerospace.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now agreed, subject to negotiation of satisfactory contractual arrangements, that the potential liability falling to the Government can be increased by a maximum of £3 million at July 1976 economic conditions. If these arrangements can be negotiated, this will mean that BAC will now be able to go ahead on the production of a further five BAC111 aircraft and this should be able to retain in its work force a considerable number of people at Hurn and Weybridge—both, of course, in the area of Labour marginal seats—who otherwise would have been forced to find other work.
In accordance with the underwriting agreement, profits from further sales will be applied towards reducing the liability incurred by the Government and actual payment by the Government would be made only if an overall loss remained when BAC111 production finally ceased. Under the agreement—

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am reluctant to intervene in the Minister's speech, but, although it is the practice of the House that a certain latitude is given to Ministers as to the prohibition on the reading of speeches, is not that latitude conditioned by their giving some semblance at least of understanding the text which they are reading?

Mr. Kaufman: I am making an announcement of vital importance[Interruption.]—to thousands of people.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has not long to go—[Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] Order. The Minister has the right to be heard as well. Mr. Kaufman.

Mr. Kaufman: Under the agreement, all the finance required for the continuation of production is being provided by the British Aircraft Corporation.
Also, during the same period Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd. proposed a six-month programme of additional design work, research and development and structural testing relating to the HS146 aircraft project. Subsequently this was examined in detail with the company.
I can now announce that in order to continue to meet the Government's decision of December 1974—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is not a case of the Minister refreshing his mind from copious notes. This is a third-rate diatribe being read to us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that was not a point of order.

Mr. Kaufman: This announcement is of vital importance to thousands of aircraft workers.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is waiting to hear the Minister wind up the Third Reading of this important Bill. He said that he was making an announcement, which is completely unrelated to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The content of the Minister's speech is his responsibility. But he should be heard.

Mr. Kaufman: To meet the Government's decision of December 1974 to keep open the possibility of launching that aircraft, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed in principle to the company undertaking the proposed programme. The Di million required to fund this work will be the responsibility of British Aerospace on vesting day and will therefore be met from within the funds of the new corporation relevant to the Bill. The Organising Committee of British Aerospace has endorsed the Hawker Siddeley Aviation proposal. I am now writing to the company setting out the terms of the Government's approval, which will be reported to the House when the necessary contractural agreements are concluded.
If the arrangements go ahead, Hawker Siddeley Aviation will not have to announce a substantial number of redundancies which otherwise would have been necessary in the immediate future at Hatfield. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) for her pressure on the Government for all this.

Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have heard some humbug

tonight. Will you rule whether humbug is an offence?

Mr. Kaufman: These industries have much to contribute. During the eight months in which the House has been considering the Bill. I have had the opportunity of visiting 20 shipyards, ship repair yards and aircraft factories, from Prestwick in the north to Brough in the east, to Hum in the south and to Filton in the west. I have seen great ships and aircraft being constructed. I am dazzled and humbled by the expertise of the workers in those industries. Only public ownership can rectify the worst and make the most fruitful use of the best.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a provision of the orders of the House that a speech on Third Reading must be confined to what is in the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard nothing out of order yet.

Mr. Kaufman: The workers in these industries have earned their chance. The Bill will give them their chance, and I urge the House to support it tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 308.

[For Division List No. 304 see col. 1061]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (STEEL WORKERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the European Communities (Iron and Steel Employees Re-adaptation Benefits Scheme) (Amendment) Regulations 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.—[Mr. Huckfield.]

Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question on the European Communities motion. [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Aye. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question again.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Question put and agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to require medical practitioners seeking to provide general medical services under the National Health Service Act 1946 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 to be suitably experienced, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Eric Deakins.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: I will, with the permission of the House, put the next three motions together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.)

TAX EXEMPTIONS

That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/2688/1/75 and R/2689/1/75 relating to Tax Exemptions.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

PENSIONS

That the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

ATOMIC ENERGY AND RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES

That the British Nuclear Fuels Limited (Payment and Loan Limit) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Question agreed to.

INVALID VEHICLES AND MOBILITY ALLOWANCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I was in this position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take part in earlier business which I was unable to hear, so I shall remain at the Dispatch Box to raise the subject of the problems of disabled drivers in West Sussex. I make no apology for calling attention to this issue, and I do so in the light of the statement made by the Secretary of State last Friday.
Before I proceed any further, I wonder whether the Minister who is expected to reply to this Adjournment debate is in the Chamber tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Leslie Huckfield): For the convenience of the hon. Member, I can tell him that my hon. Friend is just arriving.

Mr. Marshall: In that case I shall continue.
Perhaps I may deal with the background to this matter.
It has been raised with the Minister both in terms of my constituency and from time to time in the broader context of the rest of the country. I had considerable correspondence with the hon. Gentleman in 1974 and 1975, touching on matters such as the problem of safety for the road trike, arguments over design, and difficulties in obtaining spare parts and servicing.
Last Friday's announcement was the end of a campaign conducted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Let me remind the Minister of correspondence we had at the time, in respect of Mrs. Jane Image, of Littlehampton. She was a classic example of someone who found difficulty with the trike. Over


many years she made her views known through the Disabled Drivers' Action Group and other bodies. A whole range of questions which I put to the Minister over a period were fed to me by Mr. Peter MacBryan, of the Disabled Drivers' Action Group.
The background to last Friday's announcement is important, therefore. The work undertaken by the all-party Disablement Group is important, because it is on that theme that I should like to put some questions to the Minister. I do so in no party sense, as I hope he will appreciate.
In view of the widespread criticism that had gone on about the trike, last Friday's announcement was received with some satisfaction, in certain parts of the House and the country. But, unfortunately, I could not be here last Friday. I was in my constituency, and on Saturday, in travelling around in my mobile advice centre, I received some of the first reactions to the announcement. They were very strong and they reflected the anguish of a number of my constituents and disabled drivers elsewhere in the country.
I sent the Minister three letters that are typical of the kind of reaction that has come up so far, and I should like to quote briefly from them. Other letters were sent to me after it was known that I had tonight's Adjournment debate, but I shall concentrate on those from my constituents, since they are typical of many that I have received since.
The first letter was sent to me, before last Friday's announcement, by Mr. John Sachs, of Bognor Regis. He raised the problem of a disabled driver who was the owner of a trike—in this case in 1969–70. This constituent gave up the trike because, as he says, he accepted the general view then put forward regarding doubts about the safety of the vehicle. Having given it up he found that when the disability allowance was subsequently made available and he applied for it in January this year, he was refused.
The question that arises from this case is: how does a constituent manage in that situation? That brings us back to the announcement last Friday, when the Secretary of State made clear that

as for the eligibility of those beyond pension age, I have already mentioned that those who already have trikes and who will be allowed to continue with them after pension age must be allowed to continue with the alternative, which is mobility allowance, after pension age. Obviously this will produce pressure for the provision to be extended from those who do not have trikes but who have a mobility allowance that ends at pensionable age."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2233.]
The Secretary of State went on to say that he would resist that pressure. My constituent has not been granted an allowance, and he gave up the trike before reaching pensionable age.
The Government appear to deny the allowance precisely at the moment when it is most needed—at a time when retirement age is reached and earnings decline. At the moment when a person is unable to take advantage of any Employment Service Agency payments and when his overall means are at the lowest pitch, the allowance would be most valuable. What hope does the Minister hold out for my constituent and others like him?
One of the best summaries of the problem is contained in a letter written by Baroness Sharp to The Times earlier this week. She recalled the long drawn-out debate that led to the announcement that the trike was to be phased out. I draw a veil over some of the arguments in that debate over many years. The background is not entirely happy, and it has not left people with overwhelming confidence in the role of the Department of Health and Social Security in this connection.
Baroness Sharp put my constituent's case in a nutshell. She welcomed the phasing out of the trike, and added that the decision to phase it out had been a relatively easy one; the much more difficult decision was what should replace it. That is the question to which I hope the Minister will address himself.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): Does the hon. Gentleman accept Lady Sharp's fairly severe functional criteria? Does he agree with the view of the Disabled Drivers' Association that the result of adopting those criteria would be to disqualify 13,500 disabled drivers from the scheme?

Mr. Marshall: I do not think that there is much point in going back to the debate


about phasing out the trike. That decision has been made. I should like to make my speech in my own way. I am drawing to the Minister's attention what Baroness Sharp—whom we all respect—said in The Times. She asked what should replace the trike. The Government's answer to that question is an allowance of £5 a week. Again, Baroness Sharp puts is fairly:
The truth is that £5 a week is not a mobility grant at all … It will help those who can afford cars to run them; it may help others to meet the cost of occasional transport. But it dens nothing to solve the problems of those in greatest need; those unable to buy a car but whose need for personal transport is compelling.
That is a fair and valid point of view.
So far we have been unable to get any assurance on what would be an adequate amount. When we come to the letters from my constituents the relevance of the level of the allowance becomes all the more obvious. One constituent wrote to me as follows:
As one of many thousands of paraplegics with similar problems I would ask you, please, to put it to the Minister that (1) the £5 a week would scarcely help me, since I could not board a bus even if I could reach one. My world will shrink to a radius of about one mile (if I can find a sturdy pusher). (2) I shall be forced to ask others to choose my purchases and library books, perform monetary transactions and arrange meetings for me, thus depriving me of every scrap of privacy, In fact, life in a goldfish bowl!
I have had a letter from another constituent and, again, the Minister has a copy. The lady says that she left school at 16 and did not have a job until last year. She continues:
I now work part-time and also because I earn less than £7 per week get the invalidity benefit, how does the Social Services Minister think I am going to be able to buy a vehicle to get around in with an extra £5?
She concludes:
Disabled people want to be independent, not dependent.
That is the spirit of the constituents who have approached me. I am sure that it is one that is echoed throughout the country. I appreciate that it is a difficult problem, and I am not in any way underestimating the Minister's difficulties, but the answer to Baroness Sharp's question appears to be that the Government have pinned their faith on the cash allowance. Therefore, we want to hear from the Minister rather more

than we have heard so far about what the allowance is likely to be.
At present we have the reference to £5. We know that the matter is to be reviewed again next year. We hear rumours that it might be increased to £7. However, the real thrust of the reaction that I get, which I suspect all hon. Members will get, is that the figures we are talking about are totally inadequate, because of the capital cost of covering some sort of replacement vehicle.
It is in that context that I have to strike a somewhat critical note. I believe, with all respect, that in the Secretary of State's statement last Friday there was an element of self-congratulation, which is rather hard to swallow in relation to the figures that have been announced. I must put that charge to the Secretary of State, but I exempt the Minister. He did not make the statement last week, and over the years I have not found him to adopt that line. I suggest that with the background that I have described there is no room for self-satisfaction.
I urge the Minister to give us some real assurance. I am sure that he is aware of the reaction and the worries that have been promptly expressed on all sides. In the two minutes that remain to me I ask him two specific questions. First, do the Government accept the need to make more cash available so that drivers can acquire a suitable successor to the trike? Do they accept the need to make cash available so that an alternative vehicle to the trike can be obtained, whether it be on hire purchase, by way of capital grant, or on any other basis? Secondly, what are the Government doing specifically to encourage the production of a successor?
It is obvious that £5 is not an adequate sum. We must face the fact that during the next 12 months there may be people who on safety grounds wish to give up the trike and use the present allowance. The worry about the recent announcement is that it seems actively to encourage people to hang on to the trike after their true safety, as it were, has already been undermined by the Department. It is possible to refer to a number of references made to that point last Friday—namely, to carrying on with trikes until they are worn out, which involve about five years' use, and then considering the matter again. This is worrying.
There is little evidence that the Government are doing anything directly about the production of a possible successor vehicle. The whole tone of the Secretary of State's answers to questions last Friday suggested that there was no urgency. He said:
we expect to be able to maintain the supply of trikes, for those who want to keep them, for at least five years and possibly a good deal longer.
Subsequently, he said:
When the time approaches we shall assess the extent of the need for specialised vehicles for the remaining vehicle scheme beneficiaries and see which alternative vehicles and electrically powered wheelchairs, are available on the home and world markets."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2236–7.]
That surely suggests that it will be a long time before the Government feel that they are forced to take any action. Surely they should encourage the fastest possible breakthrough in terms of designs and replacements for the trike during this run down period. We cannot wait for five years and then expect a Government, of whatever political complexion, to consider the matter.
There should be scope for co-operation within the EEC. Some hon. Members with great experience of these matters have looked at work in other European countries, and there are examples of conversions that might be worth looking at.
These are some of the worries that have been expressed by my constituents. I accept the difficulties, but I ask the Minister to recognise that the points that I have put to him are mild compared with some of the criticism that has been thrown out. Indeed, he will be aware of the words of Mr. Reginald Ralph, of the Invalid Tricycle Action Group, and others. Compared with those arguments, I believe that I have put forward the mild but strong views of my constituents. I seek some further assurances from the hon. Gentleman tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): This is a rather unusual adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) was good enough to let me know the day before yesterday that the matter he would raise was not the one that he originally noti-

fied as the subject of the debate. I understand his reasons for having raised this alternative subject instead of a matter concerning payment of the attendance allowance, as he originally intended.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of matters. I understand that I have 12 to 13 minutes in which to reply. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is an extremely complex and difficult subject. Indeed, I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), whom the whole House respects as secretary of the all-party Disablement Group in the House, will agree with both the hon. Gentleman and me that there are few more complex subjects exercising the minds of right hon. and hon. Members at present. Naturally, I shall do my best to reply as fully as possible to the points that have been made.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this timely opportunity to explain our policy on phasing out the invalid tricycle and extending the mobility allowance scheme and to answer some of the ill-informed comments that have been made on the policy announced by my right hon. Friend on 23rd July.
First, I must make it clear that there is no question of immediate withdrawal of tricycles from existing users or of not dealing with applications for the vehicle which are already in hand. As my right hon. Friend said, existing users will be able to keep their tricycles and, for as long as replacements and spare parts are available, they will also be able to have them replaced when they wear out.
I have seen it suggested in the Press that replacement vehicles will cease to be available within a matter of months. We heard from the hon. Gentleman about the anxieties felt by some of his constituents. The suggestion that replacement vehicles will cease to be available within a matter of months is utterly without foundation.
My right hon. Friend explained to the House that we expect to be able to maintain the supply of tricycles to those who want to keep them or have them replaced, for at least five years and possibly for a good deal longer. We shall be building up a stockpile of spare parts expressly designed to enable us to keep


our residual fleet going for as long as practicable after production has ceased.
That does not mean I can guarantee that, in every single case where a tricycle wears out within the next five years, we shall automatically be able to provide a replacement vehicle. A small proportion of the tricycles on issue have been extensively adapted to suit individual disabled people's needs, and there is the possibility, even today, that we may be unable to provide suitable replacements when such tricycles wear out. Components used in an adaptation may have ceased to be available, or the tricycle may have been an early model and it may not be possible for the Model 70 to be similarly adapted, even though generally the Model 70 is more readily adaptable to a variety of needs than were its predecessors. In the vast majority of cases, however, I have no hesitation in saying that we expect to be able, for at least five years, to continue to provide and maintain tricycles for those who have had them and still want them.
There are two other points from the announcement made by my right hon. Friend on 23rd July which I should like to stress. The first concerns people who were not so severely disabled as to be eligible for a vehicle on medical grounds alone and who, under the old scheme, were provided with a tricycle only for so long as they needed it to get to and from work. It was one of the worst of the cruelties of the old scheme that their tricycles, or private car allowances, were liable to be withdrawn if they lost their jobs. Tricycles may not have been withdrawn immediately, but if the holder was unable to find another job in a reasonable time he had to surrender the tricycle, and he thus became deprived of all mobility help. That rule was, rightly, much criticised for causing hardship to people who had come to depend on their tricycles and for making it more difficult for them to continue to look for another job.
We are now making two changes affecting these former beneficiaries of the old scheme. First—and this change takes effect immediately—we shall now no longer withdraw their tricycles or private car allowances when they lose their jobs. I know that this will be most warmly welcomed by the many thousands of disabled people concerned.
Secondly, the legislation that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to introduce will provide a right to switch to mobility allowance when a tricycle, or private car allowance, is given up, or, for those who hold on to their tricycles for as long as they can, when the trike eventually wears out. Taken together, these changes amount to a substantial extension of reserved rights for disabled drivers.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the legislation that we shall be introducing to enable awards of mobility allowance to beneficiaries of the old scheme to continue in payment without age limit. Again, the legislation will enable tricycle holders over pension age, and those receiving private car allowances under the old scheme, to switch to a mobility allowance. This, too, is an important undertaking for disabled drivers, because about half of our 21,000 tricycle drivers are at present ineligible for mobility allowance, either by reason of age or because eligibility for a trike rested on the old and bitterly criticised employment criterion.
The old vehicle scheme had no age limit, and when it was superseded by the new mobility allowance scheme on 1st January 1976 the eligible disabled drivers were accorded reserved rights to continue, without age limit, to receive the benefits of the old scheme. We feel it is right, therefore, that they should now similarly enjoy, without age limit, the right to switch to a mobility allowance.
The policy statement of 23rd July is in close accord with the principles that led us, in 1974, to make the new mobility allowance the main mobility benefit for disabled people. The two principles were equity and flexibility—equity in relating benefit to the degree of disability and not to the ability to drive, and flexibility in providing cash for people to use as they think best in helping to meet their mobility needs. We have been seeking to make the amount of the allowance as high as possible within the available resources and consistent with meeting the proper claims of other groups, including other groups of disabled people.
Although "cash not cars" has been our broad policy since 1974, the Government did not then see compelling reasons for withdrawing the tricycle and it was retained as an alternative to the main


benefit. But there is now a decisive new factor, to which my right hon. Friend referred on 23rd July. It is now clear that before long the limits of the present design of the tricycle will have been reached. Here we have had to recognise that the future type approval requirements, linked as they will be to international standards, will make it impossible for the tricycle to remain part of our policy in the longer term.
The Shadow spokesman on the social services made it plain in the House last Friday that he recognised that this was an extremely difficult area of policy, particularly at a time of public expenditure constraint. If my right hon. Friend appeared self-congratulatory I think the hon. Member for Arundel will agree that his right hon. Friend was by no means condemnatory of the statement that was made by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I do not think it matters too much what respective Front Bench spokesmen said on this matter. People want to know whether the Minister can give any assurance about extra cash to finance an alternative vehicles.

Mr. Morris: As we have already announced, we hope to improve not only the amount but the value of the mobility allowance.
By its reception of my right hon. Friend's statement on 23rd July, the House made plain its understanding of the basic principles of our policy. There were many sympathetic interventions from right hon. and hon. Members who have given deep study to the problems of disabled people. Of course, there are some anxieties and reservations about the way in which individual groups will be affected. I hope to comment later on a few of those, including two matters raised on 23rd July by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). He was good enough to say that he thought we were doing the right thing in phasing out the trike, just as the hon. Gentleman said that he thought we were pursuing the correct policy objective in that regard. That view will be widely respected, coming as it did in the case of the hon. Member for Wells, from a member of the all-party Disablement Group who has had a strong commitment to helping disabled people over a long period.
I must deal with criticisms of the amount of the mobility allowance. I accept that the allowance is not in itself enough to buy and run a new car. Even at its current level, however, the allowance is an important contribution to the mobility costs of disabled people. Even a Minister responsible for the disabled is not free to ignore the intimidating pressures of the present economic crisis. As in every other field, there is a limit to the money available for all the improvements I have been seeking. We shall, as my right hon. Friend said, review the amount of the allowance next year. Our aim will be not only to restore but to improve its value.
Some commentators on our policy seem persuaded that we should devote far greater resources to some disabled people than others because they can drive and want to run vehicles of their own. In a letter to The Times on 28th July, Lady Sharp suggests that we should give cars on a means-tested basis to drivers who need them for work or to maintain a household. She does not propose any additional or special help for people who cannot drive but who incur especially heavy expenses in getting to work or maintaining a household.
I cannot accept that we should determine the value of benefits by reference to people's ability to drive, nor do I accept that means test, with all their implications, should apply to the main mobility benefit for disabled people. Means tests would have to be reviewed regularly, and although Lady Sharp does not spell out the implications, cars would have to be withdrawn from disabled people whose financial situation had improved. Moreover, with means testing, administrative costs would take up much too high a proportion of the total resources of money and staffing that the Government could devote to mobility benefits. In contradistinction to many Press reports, the employment factor—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twelve minutes to Twelve o'clock.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Division List No. 299 [See col. 977]


Division No. 299.]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawson, Nigel


Aitken, Jonathan
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Alison, Michael
Forman, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lloyd, Ian


Arnold, Tom
Fox, Marcus
Loveridge, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Luce, Richard


Awdry, Daniel
Freud, Clement
MacCormick, Iain


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Baker, Kenneth
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McCusker, H.


Banks, Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macfarlane, Neil


Beith, A. J.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
MacGregor, John


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Benyon, W.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Madel, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Body, Richard
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maude, Angus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawby, Ray


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Griffiths, Eldon
Mayhew, Patrick


Bradford, Rev Robert
Grimond, Rt Hon J,
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Brittan, Leon
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hall, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman


Brotherton, Michael
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hannam, John
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Budgen, Nick
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Butler. Adam (Bosworth)
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Carlisle, Mark
Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Carson, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Henderson, Douglas
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Channon, Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Mudd, David


Churchill, W. S.
Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Higgins, Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Holland, Philip
Neubert, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hooson, Emlyn
Newton, Tony


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Normenton, Tom


Cockcrott, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nott, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


Cope,John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally


Cordle, John H.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Osborn, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hurd, Douglas
Paisley, Rev Ian


Crawford, Douglas
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pardoe, John


Critchley, Julian
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parkinson, Cecil


Crouch, David
James, David
Penhaligon, David


Crowder, F. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Percival, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Drayson Burnaby
Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dunlop, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ralson, Timothy


Durant, Tony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kilfedder, James
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies. W. R.


Elliott, Sir William
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Reid, George


Emery, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Kirk, Sir Peter
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhys Williams. Sir Brandon


Fairbalrn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fairgrieve, Russell
Knox, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Farr, John
Lamont, Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Finsberg. Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)







Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornesy)
Stanley, John
Wakenham, John


Host, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Steel, David (Poxburgh)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Sainsbury, Tim
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wall, Patrick


Scott, Nicholas
Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Scott-Hopkins, James
Stradling Thomas, J.
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Watt, Hamish


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Weatherill, Bernard


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wells, John


Shepherd, Colin
Tebbit, Norman
Welsh, Andrew


Shersby, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Silvester, Fred
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sinclair, Sir George
Thompson, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Townsend, Cyril D.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Speed, Keith
Trotter, Neville
Younger, Hon George


Spence, John
Tugendhat, Christopher



Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mr John Corrie and


Sproat, Iain
Viggers, Peter
Mr Spencer Le Marchant


Stainton, Keith






NOES


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Allaun, Frank
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tarn
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Archer, Peter
Davidson, Arthur
Hatton, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Ashley, Jack
Davie, Denzil (Llanelli)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hooley, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Horam, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Huckfield, Les


Bates, Alf
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bean, R. E.
Dolg, Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bidwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hunter, Adam


Bishop, E. S.
Dunn, James A.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Boardman, H.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Edge, Geoff
Janner, Greville


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ennals, David
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Evans. Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchanan, Richard
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Judd, Frank


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Faulds, Andrew
Kaufman, Gerald


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kelley, Richard


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Russell


Campbell, Ian
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin
Kinnock, Neil


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lambie, David


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamborn, Harry


Carter, Ray
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamond, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ford, Ben
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cartwright, John
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Clemitson, Ivor
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)


Cohen, Stanley
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lipton, Marcus


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
George, Bruce
Litterick, Tom


Concannon, J. D.
Gilbert, Dr John
Lomas, Kenneth


Conlan, Bernard
Ginsburg, David
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Golding, John
Luard, Evan


Corbett, Robin
Gould, Bryan
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gourlay, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhlit)
Graham, Ted
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCartney, Hugh


Cronin, John
Grant, John (Islington C)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Grocott, Bruce
McElhone, Frank


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cryer, Bob
Hardy, Peter
McGuire, Michael (Ince)







MacKenzie, Gregor
Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Mackintosh, John P.
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Dafydd (Merloneth)


Maclennan, Robert
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McMillan Tom (Glasgow C)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McNamara, Kevin
Prescott, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Madden, Max
Price, C (Lewisham W)
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Magee, Bryan
Price, William (Rugby)
Tierney, Sydney


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Radice, Giles
Tinn, James


Mahon, Simon
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tomlinson, John


Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tomney, Frank


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Torney, Tom


Marquand, David
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannook)
Tuck, Raphael


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Urwin, T. W.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Maynard Miss Joan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Meacher, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Waker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mendelson, John
Roper, John
Ward, Michael


Mikardo, Ian
Rose, Paul B.
Watkins, David


Millan, Bruce
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Watkinson, John


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Miller Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Sandelson, Neville
Weitzman, David


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sedgemore, Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Moonman, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
White, James (Pollok)


Morris Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Whitlock, William


Moyle, Roland
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Newens, Stanley
Sillars, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Noble, Mike
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Oakes, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Sir Thomas


Ogden, Eric
Small, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Orbach, Maurice
Snape, Peter
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ovenden, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodall, Alec


Owen, Dr David
Stallard, A. W.
Woof, Robert


Padley, Walter
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Palmer, Arthur
Stoddart, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


park, George
Stott, Roger



Parker, John
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Parry, Robert
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Mr Joseph Harper and


Pavitt, Laurie
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr James Hamilton


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Swain, Thomas





Division List No. 300 [See col. 977]


Division No. 300.]
AYES
[7.55 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Aitken, Jonathan
Burden, F. A.
Elliott, Sir William


Alison, Michael
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Emery, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Jullian
Carlisle, Mark
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Arnold Tom
Carson, John
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eyre, Reginald


Awdry Daniel
Channon, Paul
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bain Mrs Margaret
Churchill, W. S.
Fairgrieve, Russell


Baker, Kenneth
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Farr, John


Banks Robert
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fell, Anthony


Beith, A J.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cockcroft, John
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Benyon, W.
Cope, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cordle, John H.
Forman, Nigel


Biffen John
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Biggs-Davison, John
Corrie, John
Fox, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Body, Richard
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Freud, Clement


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crawford, Douglas
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Critchley, Julian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Crouch, David
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Davies. Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Braine Sir Bernard
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brittan Leon
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Brocklebank-Fowier, C.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Goodhart, Philip


Brotherton, Micheal
Drayson, Burnaby
Goodhew, Victor


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Goodlad, Alastair


Bryan, Sir Paul
Dunlop, John
Gorst, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Durant, Tony
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Budgen, Nick
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)







Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Eldon
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sainsbury, Tim


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Madel, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Scott, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hall, Sir John
Males, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, Colin


Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shersby, Michael


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mayhew, Patrick
Silvester, Fred


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Hastings, Stephen
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sinclair, Sir George


Havers, Sir Michael
Mills, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Henderson, Douglas
Molyneaux, James
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus
Sproat, Iain


Higgins, Terence L.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stanley, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan, Geraint
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stokes, John


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mudd, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hurd, Douglas
Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Newton, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Normanlcn, Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


James, David
Nott, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; Wdf'd)
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Osborn, John
Thompson, George


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Jopling, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian
Trotter, Neville


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pardoe, John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Penhaligon, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Viggers, Peter


Kilfedder, James
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
Wakeham, John


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Kirk, Sir Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wall, Patrick


Knight, Mrs Jill
Raison, Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Lamont, Norman
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Watt, Hamish


Lane, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Weatherill, Bernard


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Reid, George
Welsh, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wiggin, Jerry


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams Sir Brandon



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wigley, Dafydd


Lloyd Ian
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Loveridge, John
Rifkind, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Luce, Richard
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


MacCormick, Iain
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


McCrindle, Robert
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Younger, Hon George


McCusker, H.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Macfarlane, Neil
Ross, William (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacGregor, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mi Carol Mather and


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mr Jim Lester.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Allaun, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Peter
Bishop, E. S.
Buchanan, Richard


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Ashley, Jack
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Ashton, Joe
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Callaghan, Jim (Middlelon &amp; P)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Campbell, Ian


Atkinson, Norman
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Canavan, Dennis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cant, R. B.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bradley, Tom
Carmichael, Neil


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Carter, Ray


Bates, Alf
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bean, R. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cartwright, John







Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John


Clemilson, Ivor
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Owen, Dr David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Padley, Walter


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Park, George


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parker, John


Concannon, J. D.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parry, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Perry, Ernest


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, C (Lewisham W)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kerr, Russell
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kilroy Silk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davie, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rose, Paul B.


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Doig, Peter
Lee, John
Rowlands, Ted


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough}
Sandelson, Neville


Douglas-Mann Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sedgemore, Brian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon. Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Litterick, Tom
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Eadie Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Edge, Geoff
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)


Ellis John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sillars, James


Ellis,Tom (Wrexham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silverman, Julius


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Ennals David
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


Evans, John (Newton)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McGuire. Michael (Ince)
Spriggs, Leslie


Faulds Andrew
MacKenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Stoddart, David


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stott, Roger


Flannery, Martin
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Madden, Max
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan
Summerskiil, Hon Dr Shirley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Swain, Thomas


Ford Ben
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Forrester, John
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marquand, David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tierney, Sydney


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomlinson, John


Gilbert, Dr John
Meacher, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Torney, Tom


Golding, John
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael


Gould, Bryan
Mikardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Miliar, Bruce
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Graham, Ted
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grocott, Bruce
Moonman, Eric
Waker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ward, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkinson, John


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moyle, Roland
Weetch, Ken


Hatton, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Weitzman, David


Hayman, Mrs Helens
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wellbeloved, James


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Newens, Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Heffer, Eric S.
Noble, Mike
White, James (Pollok)


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Whitehead, Phillip


Horam, John
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham.Sm H)
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Huckfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)







Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Wise, Mrs Audrey



Williams, Sir Thomas
Woodall, Alec
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Woof, Robert
Mr Joseph Harper and


Wilton, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr James Hamilton


Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Young, David (Bolton E)





Division List No. 301 [See col. 977]


Division No. 301.]
AYES
[8.8 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Knox, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman


Alison, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lane, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Awdry, Daniel
Forman, Nigel
Lawson, Nigel


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Baker, Kenneth
Fox, Marcus
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Banks, Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement
Lloyd, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Luce, Richard


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
MacCormick, Iain


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McCrindle, Robert


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McCusker, H.


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Macfariane, Neil


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
MacGregor, John


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Boitomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gorst, John
Madel, David


Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marten, Neil


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mates, Michael


Brittan, Leon
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Griffiths, Eldon
Maude, Angus


Brotherton, Michael
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grist, Ian
Mawby, Ray


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hall, Sir John
Mayhew, Patrick


Buck, Antony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Hannam, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Carlisle, Mark
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moate, Roger


Carson, John
Hastings, Stephen
Molyneaux, James


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Havers, Sir Michael
Monro, Hector


Channon, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Henderson, Douglas
Morgan, Geraint


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Clegg, Walter
Hicks, Robert
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cockcroft, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cope,John
Hooson, Emlyn
Mudd, David


Cordle, John H.
Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey


Cormack, Patrick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Corrie, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Neubert, Michael


Costa in, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Newton, Tony


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Normanton, Tom


Crawford, Douglas
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nott, John


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Onslow, Cranley


Crouch, David
Hurd, Douglas
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Crowder, F. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
James, David
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby
Pardoe, John


Drayson, Burneby
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Parkinson, Cecil


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Penhaligon, David


Dunlop, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Percival, Ian


Durant, Tony
Jopling, Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Dykes, Hugh
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Elliott, Sir William
Kershaw, Anthony
Prior, Rt Hon James


Emery, Peter
Kilfedder, James
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rathbone, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Farr, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Reid, George







Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Wakenham, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stainton, Keith
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stanley, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wall, Patrick


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walters, Dennis


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Watt, Hamish


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stokes, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, John


Sainsbury, Tim
Tapsell, Peter
Welsh, Andrew


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tebbit, Norman
Wigley, Dafydd


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Shepherd Colin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shersby Michael
Thompson, George
Younger, Hon George


Sims Roger
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)



Sinclair, Sir George
Townsend, Cyril D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trotter, Neville
Mr Fred Silvester and


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr W Benyon




NOES


Abse, Leo
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Grant, John (Islington C)


Allaun, Frank
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grocott, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Cryer, Bob
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Archer, Peter
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Hardy, Peter


Ashley, Jack
Dalyell, Tam
Harper, Joseph


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Atkinson, Norman
Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hatton, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Deakins, Eric
Heffer, Eric S.


Bates, Alf
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hooley, Frank


Bean, R. E.
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Horam, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bennett Andrew (Stockport N)
Dempsey, James
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bidwell, Sydney
Doig, Peter
Huckfield, Les


Bishop, E. S.
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Boardman, H.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Eadie, Alex
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bradley, Tom
Edge, Geoff
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
English, Michael
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ennals, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Buchan, Norman
Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)
John, Brynmor


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, John (Newton)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Campbell, Ian
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Canavan, Dennis
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Judd, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Flannery, Martin
Kaufman, Gerald


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Kelley,Richard


Carter, Ray
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Russell


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cartwright, John
Ford, Ben
Kinnock, Neil


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Forrester, John
Lambie, David


Clemitson, Ivor
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamborn, Harry


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamond, James


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lee, John


Concannon, J. D.
George, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Conlan, Bernard
Gilbert, Dr John
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)


Corbett, Robin
Golding, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gould, Bryan
Lipton, Marcus


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gourlay, Harry
Litterick, Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
Graham, Ted
Lomas, Kenneth


Cronin, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Loyden, Eddie







Luard, Evan
Padley, Walter
Strang, Gavin


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Park, George
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Parker, John
Swain, Thomas


McCartney, Hugh
Parry, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McElhone, Frank
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Perry, Ernest
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tierney, Sydney


Mackintosh, John P.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tinn, James


Maclennan, Robert
Prescott, John
Tomlinson, John


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Price, C (Lewisham W)
Tomney, Frank


McNamara, Kevin
Price, William (Rugby)
Torney, Tom


Madden, Max
Radice, Giles
Tuck, Raphael


Magee, Bryan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Urwin, T. W.


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Albert (Normantcn)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Marks, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marquand, David
Robinson, Geoffrey
Waker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Ward, Michael


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Watkins, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Watkinson, John


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rooker, J. W.
Weetch, Ken


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Weitzman, David


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Welibeloved, James


Mendelson, John
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mikardo, Ian
Rowlands, Ted
White, James (Pollok)


Millan, Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
Whitehead, Phillip


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sedgemore, Brian
Whitlock, William


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Moonman, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sillars, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Silverman, Julius
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Newens, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Noble, Mike
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Oakes, Gordon
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ogden, Eric
Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


O'Halloran, Michael
Spearing, Nigel



Orbach, Maurice
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stallard, A. W.
Mr David Stoddart and


Ovenden, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr John Ellis


Owen, Dr David
Stott, Roger





Division List No. 302 [See col. 977]


Division No. 302.]
AYES
[8.26 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Buck, Antony
Durant, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nick
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Michael
Bulmer, Esmond
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Burden, F. A.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Tom
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Elliott, Sir William


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carlisle, Mark
Emery, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Carson, John
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Baker, Kenneth
Channon, Paul
Eyre, Reginald


Banks, Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bell, Ronald
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Farr, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fell, Anthony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clegg, Walter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Cockcroft, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Biffen, John
Cope,John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Cordle, John H.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blaker, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Forman, Nigel


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Fox, Marcus


Bottomley, Peter
Crawford, Douglas
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford A Si)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Critchley, Julian
Freud, Clement


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Crouch, David
Fry, Peter


Bradford, Rev Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Brittan, Leon
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Brotherton, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Drayson, Burnaby
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Bryan, Sir Paul
du Cann, Rf Hon Edward
Goodhart, Philip


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dunlop, John
Goodhew, Victor







Goodlad, Alastair
McCusker, H.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
MacGregor, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sainsbury, Tim


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas


Griffiths Eldon
Madel, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grist, Ian
Marten, Nell
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hall Sir John
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Colin


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus
Shersby, Michael


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Silvester, Fred


Hampson Dr Keith
Mawby, Ray
Sims, Roger


Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sinclair, Sir George


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mayhew, Patrick
Skeet, T.H.H.


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith,Dudley (Warwick)


Hastings, stephen
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Speed, Keith


Havers, Sir Michael
Mills, Peter
Spence, John


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Jim W (Dorset)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moate, Roger
Stainton,Keith


Henderson, Douglas
Molyneaux, James
Sproat, Iain


Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanley, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
steel, David (Roxburgh)


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hooson Emlyn
Morgan, Geraint
Stewart Donald (Western Isles)


Horden, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stokes, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Tapcell, Peter


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mudd, David
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Hurd, Douglas
Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Newton, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


James, David
Nott, John
Thomas, Rt Hon p. (Hendon S)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df c
 Onslow, Cranley
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Thompson George


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Osborn, John
Townsend, Cyril D.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Trotter, Neville


Jones Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jopling, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pardoe, John
Vannhan Dr Gerard


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil
Viggers, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Penhallgon, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Wakenham, John


Kilfedder, James
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
Walkor-Smith Rt Hon Sir Derek


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walter, Dennis


Kirk, Sir Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wall Patrick


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Warron, Kenneth


Knight, Mrs Jill
Ralson, Timothy
Watt, Hamish


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim
Weatherill, Bernard


Lamont, Norman
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wells, John


Lane, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Welsh, Andrew


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Reid, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Winterton, Nicholas


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wigley, Dafydd


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lewis Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Lloyd, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm
Younger, Hon George


Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLER FOR THE AYES:


Luce, Richard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



MacCormick, Iain
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr John Corrie and


McCrindle, Robert
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Mr Michael Roberts




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bates, Alf
Bradley, Tom


Allaun, Frank
Bean, R. E.
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedflwood
Broughton, Sir Alfred


Archer, Peter
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bldwell, Sydney
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)


Ashley, Jack
Bishop, E. S.
Brown Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Ashton, Joe
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchan, Norman


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Boardman, H.
Buchanan, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Baoier, Gordon A. T.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.(Cardiff SE)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Callaghan, Jim (Middieton &amp; P)


Burnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Campbell, Ian







Canavan, Dennis
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Noblo, Mike


Cant, R. B.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Oakes, Gordon


Carmichael, Neil
Heifer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Carter, Ray
Hooley, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ovenden, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Huckfield, Les
Owen, Dr David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Padley, Walter


Cohan, Stanley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John


Concannon, J. D.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pendry, Tom


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Phipps, Dr Colin


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cronin, John
John, Biynmor
Prescott, John


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, C (Lewisham W)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dalyell, Tarn
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kerr, Russell
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davies, lfor (Gower)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Deakins, Eric
Lamble, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rose, Paul B.


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Doig, Peter
Lee, John
Rowlands, Ted


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sandelson, Neville


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sedgemore, Brian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)
Selby, Harry


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dunnett, Jack
Llpton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Litterick, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Edge, Geoff
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sillars, James


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius


Ennals, David
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Small, William


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, John (Newton)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spriggs, Leslie


Faulds, Andrew
MacKenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maciennan, Robert
Stoddart, David


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stott, Roger


Flannery, Martin
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Madden, Max
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Swain, Thomas


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Forrester, John
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marquand, David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tierney, Sydney


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomilnson, John


Gilbert, Dr John
Meacher, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Torney, Tom


Golding, John
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael


Gould, Bryan
Mlkardo, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Rt Hon Erie G.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, R. c. (Soton, Itchen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ward, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watkinson, John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland
Weetch, Ken


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Weitzman, David


Hallersley, Rt Hon Roy
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wellbeloved, James


Hatton, Frank
Newens. Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury)







White, James (Pollok)
Williams, Sir Thomas
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Whitlock, William
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)



Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr Peter Snape and


Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Woodall, Alec
Mr Ted Graham


Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Woof, Robert





Division List No. 303[See col. 978]


Division No. 303.]
AYES
[8.32 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Farr, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Alison, Michael
Fell, Anthony
Kirk, Sir Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Arnold, Tom
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knight, Mrs Jill


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knox, David


Awdry, Daniel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lamont, Norman


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David


Baker, Kenneth
Forman, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Banks, Robert
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Beith, A. J.
Fox, Marcus
Lawrence, Ivan


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawson, Nigel


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Freud, Clement
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fry, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Benyon, W.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lloyd, Ian


Bitten, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Loveridge, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Luce, Richard


Blaker, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
MacCormick, Iain


Body, Richard
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McCrindle, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Philip
McCusker, H.


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Macfarlane, Nell


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Goodlad, Alastair
MacGregor, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gorst, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Brittan, Leon
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Madel, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gray, Hamish
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Brotherton, Michael
Griffiths, Eldon
Marten, Neil


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grimond, Rt Hon J
Mates, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Buck, Antony
Hall, Sir John
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Budgen, Nick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Burden, F. A.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Patrick


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hannam, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Carson, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mills, Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hastings, Stephen
Mlscampbell, Norman


Channon, Paul
Havers, Sir Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Moate, Roger


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hayhoe, Barney
Molyneaux, James


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Monro, Hector


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Cockcroft, John
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint


Cope, John
Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Cordle, John H.
Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Corrie, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Mudd, David


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neave, Airey


Crouch, David
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Nelson, Anthony


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael


Davies. Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Newton, Tony


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hurd, Douglas
Normanton, Tom


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Onslow, Cranley


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Osborn, John


Dunlop, John
Jessel, Toby
Page, John (Harrow West)


Durant, Tony
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Dykes, Hugh
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pardoe, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Elliott, Sir William
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Penhaligon, David


Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner


Eyre, Reginald
Kilfedder, James
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)







Prior, Rt Hon James
Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Pyrn, Rt Hon Francis
Silvester, Fred
Tugendhat, Christopher


Raison, Timothy
Sims, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rathbone, Tim
Sinclair, Sir George
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.
Viggers, Peter


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Speed, Keith
Wakeham, John


Reid, George
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Renton, Rt. Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Sproat, Iain
Wall, Patrick


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Ridsdale, Julian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stanley, John
Watt, Hamish


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wells, John


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wigley, Dafydd


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Tapsell, Peter
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Sainsbury, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Scott, Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret



Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thompson, George
Mr. D. E. Thomas and


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Douglas Crawford


Shepherd, Colin
Townsend, Cyril D.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Crawshaw, Richard
Ginsburg, David


Allaun, Frank
Cronin, John
Golding, John


Anderson, Donald
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Gould, Bryan


Archer, Peter
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Gourlay, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Cryer, Bob
Graham, Ted


Ashley, Jack
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dalyell, Tarn
Grocott, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harper, Joseph


Bates, Alt
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bean, R. E.
Deakins, Eric
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hatton, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Boardman, H.
Dormand, J. D.
Hooley, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Horam, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Duffy, A. E. P.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dunnett, Jack
Huckfleld, Let


Bradley, Tom
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen J)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Buchanan, Richard
Ennals, David
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Campbell, Ian
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Cant, R. B.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
John, Brynmor


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carter, Ray
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Clemitson, Ivor
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Judd, Frank


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Ford, Ben
Kaufman, Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Forrester, John
Kelley, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kerr, Russell


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Freeson, Reginald
Kinnock, Nell


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lamble, David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lamborn, Harry


Corbett, Robin
George, Bruce
Lamond, James


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gilbert, Dr John
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)







Leadbitter, Ted
Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Lee, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Orbach, Maurice
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stoddart, David


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ovenden, John
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Dr David
Strang, Gavin


Lipton, Marcus
Padley, Walter
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lomas, Kenneth
Palmer, Arthur
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Loyden, Eddie
Park, George
Swain, Thomas


Luard, Evan
Parker, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Parry, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McCartney, Hugh
Pendry, Tom
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Perry, Ernest
Tierney, Sydney


McElhone, Frank
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tomlinson, John


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tomney, Frank


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


MacKenzie, Gregor
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tuck, Raphael


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, William (Rugby)
Urwin, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Radice, Giles
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McNamara, Kevin
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Madden, Max
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Magee, Bryan
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Ward, Michael


Mahon, Simon
Robinson, Geoffrey
Watkins, David


Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Roderick, Caerwyn
Watkinson, John


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Weetch, Ken


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Weitzman, David


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rooker, J. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roper, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rose, Paul B.
White, James (Pollock)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Meacher, Michael
Rowlands, Ted
Whitlock, William


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mendelson, John
Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Mikardo, Ian
Selby, Harry
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Millan, Bruce
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Moonman, Eric
Short, Mrs RenéRe (Wolv NE)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woodall, Alec


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sillars, James
Woof, Robert


Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton E)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Small, William



Newens, Stanley
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES-


Noble, Mike
Snape, Peter
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Oakes, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. James Tinn.




Division List No. 304 [See col. 1024]


Division No. 304.]
AYES
[10.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cryer, Bob


Allaun, Frank
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Anderson, Donald
Buchanan, Richard
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Archer, Peter
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Daiyell, Tarn


Armstrong, Ernest
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davidson, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Canavan, Dennis
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Atkinson, Norman
Cant, R. B.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carter, Ray
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Barnelt, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bates, Alf
Cartwright, John
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Bean, R. E.
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dempsey, James


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Clemitson, Ivor
Doig, Peter


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dormand, J. D.


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas.Mann, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Coleman, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Dunn, James A.


Boardman, H.
Concannon,J.D.
Dunnett, Jack


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Conlan, Bernard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Eadie, Alex


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Corbett, Robin
Edge, Geoff


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bradley, Tom
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cronin, John
English, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Enrvals, David


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)







Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lipton, Marcus
Rooker, J. W.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Litterlck, Tom
Roper, John


Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Luard, Evan
Rowlands, Ted


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sandelson, Neville


Flannery, Martin
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sedgemore, Brian


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Selby, Harry


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Forrester, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv HE)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maclennan, Robert
Sillars, James


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Silverman, Julius


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


Gilbert, Dr John
Madden, Max
Small, William


Ginsburg, David
Magee, Bryan
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Golding, John
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Snape, Peter


Gould, Bryan
Mahon, Simon
Spearing, Nigel


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Graham, Ted
Marks, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Strang, Gavin


Hardy, Peter
Maynard, Miss Joan
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Harrison, Welter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Swain, Thomas


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mendeison, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hatton, Frank
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hayman, Mrs Helena
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)
Tierney, Sydney


Horam, John
Moorman. Eric
Tinn, James


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomlinson, John


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tomney, Frank


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes. Mark (Durham)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hunter, Adam
Noble, Mike
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Halloran, Michael
Ward, Michael


Jackson. Mise Margaret (Lincoln)
Orbach, Maurice
Watkins, David


Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkinson, John


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ovenden, John
Weetch, Ken


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr David
Weltzman, David


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter
Wellbeloved, James


John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Park, George
White, James (Pollock)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Parker, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Parry, Robert
Whitlock, William


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pavitt, Laurie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Judd, Frank
Pendry. Tom
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Kelley, Richard
Phipps, Dr Colin
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Kerr, Russell
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Prescott, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Kinnock, Nell
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lamble, David
Price, William (Rugby)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lamborn, Harry
Radice, Giles
Woodall, Alec


Lamond, James
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Woof, Robert


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lee, John
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)



Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Robinson, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. James Hamillton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Benyon, W.


Altken, Jonathan
Baker, Kenneth
Berry, Hon Anthony


Alison, Michael
Banks, Robert
Biffen, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Beith, A. J.
Biggs-Davison, John


Arnold, Tom
Bell, Ronald
Blaker, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Body, Richard


Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert







Botlomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hall, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Brittan, Leon
Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Brotherton, Michael
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mudd, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hawkins, Paul
Neubert, Michael


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Budgen, Nick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Normanton, Tom


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Douglas
Nott, John


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John


Carson, John
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow West)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Channon, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Churchill, W. S.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pardoe, John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pattle, Geoffrey


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Panhaligon, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Percival, Ian


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cockcroft, John
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hurd, Douglas
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cope, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cordle, John H.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Corrie, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Raison, Timothy


Costain, A. P.
Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Crawford, Douglas
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Critchley, Julian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Reid, George


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Drayson, Burnaby
Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dunlop, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Durant, Tony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirk, Sir Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight. Mrs Jill
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Elliott, Sir William
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lane, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawson, Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacCormick, Iain
Shersby, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Forman, Nigel
McCusker, H.
Sims, Roger


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macfarlane, Nell
Sinclair, Sir George


Fox, Marcus
MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick


Freud, Clement
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Speed, Keith


Fry, Peter
McNair-WiIson, P. (New Forest)
Spence, John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Madel, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mates, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Angus
Stanley, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mills, Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Griffiths, Eldon
Molyneaux, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Grimond, Rt Hon J,
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas. Dafydd (Merioneth)







Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, George
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Wigley, Dafydd


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Townsend, Cyril d.
Wall, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Trotter, Neville
Walter, Dennis
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Tugendhat, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


van Straubenzee, W. R
Watt, Hamish
Younger, Hon George


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Weatherill, Bernard



Viggers, Peter
Wells, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Cecil Parkinson and


Wakeham, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant